http://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mbard&feedformat=atomConnectivityStudy - User contributions [en]2017-08-18T06:00:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.26.2http://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2616Idaho State Visit Data2007-04-06T17:28:16Z<p>Mbard: /* Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium */</p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Syringa Networks==<br />
<br />
*About<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Representative Durst==<br />
<br />
Representative Durst serves on the ITRMC council for the house of representatives in ID.<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**Poor deployment<br />
**Missed several opportunities<br />
**They have not spent money well<br />
**Outside of the urban areas, it is dysfunctional—needs to be more efficient<br />
**4 on a scale of 1 to 10<br />
*Vision for Deployment<br />
**State—no plan<br />
**His vision<br />
***First step is to have somebody in a position to move the deployment forward (having a state CIO, who has the ability to make decisions for the state)<br />
***Next, formulate a plan to allocate broadband throughout the state<br />
****Some constraints and obstacles<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**Serve as catalyst to get access to the Internet---a place to go<br />
**All communities have a library; they need a place to go<br />
**Don’t like to wait<br />
*What have they done to promote broadband?<br />
**$5 million for rural broadband—not used well; was used to increase deployment in areas and they used it in places where it already existed<br />
**ITD used money w/out concern for other agencies<br />
**Lamda Rail—figuring out how research institutions can use this resource <br />
**Broadband Tax incentive-not sure if it is the way to go or not; the way he understands this will work is a user fee<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working w/ ITRMC<br />
***Wants to create a report to study broadband allocation from the state agency perspective<br />
***Get a greater grasp of what the state of things are and where they are going<br />
***Get the Governor onboard<br />
**Lack of attention drawn to broadband<br />
**Backwoods mentality that we need to get over<br />
***From his perspective, ID has not done the best job at being proactive at overcoming their barriers<br />
***People see broadband as a want and not a need<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increasing access to the infrastructure (helping to fund that)<br />
**Important to have an education campaign to increase awareness of the niche that libraries fill<br />
<br />
==Senator Bastion==<br />
<br />
Senator Stan Bastion is the Senate member of ITRMC, a city council member and liason to the local library.<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Need to do more to make it available<br />
**Broadband to the home<br />
**High interest in Qwest to increase fiber deployment<br />
***Has called a meeting w/ mayors <br />
***Senator would like to see libraries get connected via this fiber<br />
**Successful in urban areas<br />
***But this success is no as powerful as Fiber to the Home<br />
**In rural communities, there is less<br />
***High cost<br />
***Trying to get it to schools<br />
*State Policies<br />
**Sees TX as a model with uniform video franchise fee (sees this an incentive for deployment)<br />
**Would like to ITRMC adop uniform standards that include fiber to the communities<br />
**Thought the $5 million matching was good<br />
***Additional funding could help in that area (maybe Gates could match)<br />
*Interventions<br />
**Provide for public/private partnerships<br />
***Matching funds to increase deployment<br />
**Increase fiber deployment<br />
***Establish group of providers to build a network (possibly owned by the state; used analogy of an airport)<br />
***Then charge a fee for carriers to use <br />
**ITRMC can establish standards<br />
<br />
==ITRMC==<br />
<br />
The Information Technology Resource Management Council (ITRMC) is a council made of people who make strategic decisions in regards to how the state agency manages information technology. In a way, it serves as the state CIO by committee. This is an interview w/ its staff.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**16 member council formed in 1996<br />
**Headed up by the Department of Administration<br />
***Includes many departments and stakeholders<br />
**Sets State IT Policy and strategy (but has not regulatory authority<br />
**State does not have a CIO<br />
**Lack authority to force adoption of its recommendations <br />
**Has a small staff to assist council, including in web and telecommunications services<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Internal to state<br />
**Hodge podge, with no one to take the leadership and coordination <br />
***ITRMC trying to take this position<br />
**Vision-Bring people together to find ways to aggreagate demand<br />
***There is a lack of coordingation to bring people together<br />
*What is ITRMC doing?<br />
**Telecom summit to bring people together to talk about telecom and broadband<br />
***Mapping out who to bring to the table<br />
****If too big of a group, there will be to many to bring to a consensus<br />
****Trying to set scope and boundaries; otherwise no good outcome<br />
*Who are the players?<br />
**Science and Tech Advisory council<br />
**Health quality planning<br />
**Education<br />
**Idaho national labs<br />
***Trying to build Research and education network<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Defining broadband<br />
**Getting a community to speak w/ a unified voice<br />
***They talk a lot but don’t ever get anywhere<br />
*State Networks<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Successful but to a point<br />
***Never realized their full potential because of split<br />
***Political baggage<br />
**Transportation, Public Safety and Military has an effort underway<br />
***They tried to work w/ IDANET but have sense split<br />
**No Focused leadership <br />
*State Policy<br />
**Tax incentive was successful for broadband deployment<br />
***Grew around 200% w/ incentive (was top state for a while and attributes this to the tax incentive<br />
**$5 Million matching grant Accelerated business plans for deployment<br />
***Has helped 80 communities<br />
*Studies<br />
**Regional from Clearwater area<br />
**National Labs <br />
***MB Note: guy gave me study<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Sponsor a study to see what is available<br />
**Find a way to incent carriers to deploy to communities<br />
**Still wrestling w/ other ideas<br />
<br />
==State Supreme Court==<br />
<br />
John R. Peay is the Director of Information Systems at the Idaho Supreme Court<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**1990 agencies came together to discuss the need to grow together for economic development<br />
**Revised agenda in 1994<br />
**Then they formed ITMRC to foster collaboration and set state standards<br />
**Strategy of the state<br />
***Have private industry extend broadband throughout the state<br />
****Impeded by geography<br />
****However, court need fiber capacity delivered to court house in every state<br />
*****Therefore, partnered with Dept. of Transportation (ITD) for rights away <br />
****Driven to deploy for economic development<br />
****Sidestepped because of Y2K<br />
****Has been able to deploy fiber <br />
*****With partnership s w/ Tranportation and Juvenile Courts<br />
*****Has MoU ITD provides technology; Courts helped pay for switches<br />
*How Libraries fit into agenda<br />
**Problem is in the last mile<br />
**ITD, Police, Corrections and Health are well off (they partner)<br />
**Aggregation study was published in 1999, which included libraries<br />
***Not well receivd<br />
**Tension among various stakehoulders<br />
**Everyone keeps to themselves<br />
***Higher Ed, and K12 ignore ITERMC standards<br />
**State interaction w/ local gov’t is prickly (not good)<br />
***Cities form a powerful lobby<br />
**Lack of deployment not totally a technical one-&gt;conservative government that is close with their money<br />
**Libraries have no champion<br />
*Success Factors<br />
**Partnership w/ ITD (for courts)<br />
**Supreme court has some authority over local courts and government<br />
**Made effort to partner with counties (unique for a state agency)<br />
***Got some funding to help build broadband with state support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Financial<br />
**Independence<br />
***Put in computer system to connect all the courts, but courts wanted independence from state gov’t<br />
****Interesting note: now local courts want to be tied in with the state<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Raise public awareness as to the value of libraries<br />
***Partnering with schools to show ed value<br />
**No funds from legislature in 10 year to help b/c of champions<br />
**Right now there is a big push in the state for community colleges<br />
***Possible latching on to this campaign<br />
**Ideas to get infrastructure to counties is there, but connection to libraries is needed<br />
**Technical help<br />
**Funding is key…assistance to libraries to get funding<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Keith Johnson==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2615Idaho State Visit Data2007-04-06T17:27:47Z<p>Mbard: /* =Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium */</p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Syringa Networks==<br />
<br />
*About<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Representative Durst==<br />
<br />
Representative Durst serves on the ITRMC council for the house of representatives in ID.<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**Poor deployment<br />
**Missed several opportunities<br />
**They have not spent money well<br />
**Outside of the urban areas, it is dysfunctional—needs to be more efficient<br />
**4 on a scale of 1 to 10<br />
*Vision for Deployment<br />
**State—no plan<br />
**His vision<br />
***First step is to have somebody in a position to move the deployment forward (having a state CIO, who has the ability to make decisions for the state)<br />
***Next, formulate a plan to allocate broadband throughout the state<br />
****Some constraints and obstacles<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**Serve as catalyst to get access to the Internet---a place to go<br />
**All communities have a library; they need a place to go<br />
**Don’t like to wait<br />
*What have they done to promote broadband?<br />
**$5 million for rural broadband—not used well; was used to increase deployment in areas and they used it in places where it already existed<br />
**ITD used money w/out concern for other agencies<br />
**Lamda Rail—figuring out how research institutions can use this resource <br />
**Broadband Tax incentive-not sure if it is the way to go or not; the way he understands this will work is a user fee<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working w/ ITRMC<br />
***Wants to create a report to study broadband allocation from the state agency perspective<br />
***Get a greater grasp of what the state of things are and where they are going<br />
***Get the Governor onboard<br />
**Lack of attention drawn to broadband<br />
**Backwoods mentality that we need to get over<br />
***From his perspective, ID has not done the best job at being proactive at overcoming their barriers<br />
***People see broadband as a want and not a need<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increasing access to the infrastructure (helping to fund that)<br />
**Important to have an education campaign to increase awareness of the niche that libraries fill<br />
<br />
==Senator Bastion==<br />
<br />
Senator Stan Bastion is the Senate member of ITRMC, a city council member and liason to the local library.<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Need to do more to make it available<br />
**Broadband to the home<br />
**High interest in Qwest to increase fiber deployment<br />
***Has called a meeting w/ mayors <br />
***Senator would like to see libraries get connected via this fiber<br />
**Successful in urban areas<br />
***But this success is no as powerful as Fiber to the Home<br />
**In rural communities, there is less<br />
***High cost<br />
***Trying to get it to schools<br />
*State Policies<br />
**Sees TX as a model with uniform video franchise fee (sees this an incentive for deployment)<br />
**Would like to ITRMC adop uniform standards that include fiber to the communities<br />
**Thought the $5 million matching was good<br />
***Additional funding could help in that area (maybe Gates could match)<br />
*Interventions<br />
**Provide for public/private partnerships<br />
***Matching funds to increase deployment<br />
**Increase fiber deployment<br />
***Establish group of providers to build a network (possibly owned by the state; used analogy of an airport)<br />
***Then charge a fee for carriers to use <br />
**ITRMC can establish standards<br />
<br />
==ITRMC==<br />
<br />
The Information Technology Resource Management Council (ITRMC) is a council made of people who make strategic decisions in regards to how the state agency manages information technology. In a way, it serves as the state CIO by committee. This is an interview w/ its staff.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**16 member council formed in 1996<br />
**Headed up by the Department of Administration<br />
***Includes many departments and stakeholders<br />
**Sets State IT Policy and strategy (but has not regulatory authority<br />
**State does not have a CIO<br />
**Lack authority to force adoption of its recommendations <br />
**Has a small staff to assist council, including in web and telecommunications services<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Internal to state<br />
**Hodge podge, with no one to take the leadership and coordination <br />
***ITRMC trying to take this position<br />
**Vision-Bring people together to find ways to aggreagate demand<br />
***There is a lack of coordingation to bring people together<br />
*What is ITRMC doing?<br />
**Telecom summit to bring people together to talk about telecom and broadband<br />
***Mapping out who to bring to the table<br />
****If too big of a group, there will be to many to bring to a consensus<br />
****Trying to set scope and boundaries; otherwise no good outcome<br />
*Who are the players?<br />
**Science and Tech Advisory council<br />
**Health quality planning<br />
**Education<br />
**Idaho national labs<br />
***Trying to build Research and education network<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Defining broadband<br />
**Getting a community to speak w/ a unified voice<br />
***They talk a lot but don’t ever get anywhere<br />
*State Networks<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Successful but to a point<br />
***Never realized their full potential because of split<br />
***Political baggage<br />
**Transportation, Public Safety and Military has an effort underway<br />
***They tried to work w/ IDANET but have sense split<br />
**No Focused leadership <br />
*State Policy<br />
**Tax incentive was successful for broadband deployment<br />
***Grew around 200% w/ incentive (was top state for a while and attributes this to the tax incentive<br />
**$5 Million matching grant Accelerated business plans for deployment<br />
***Has helped 80 communities<br />
*Studies<br />
**Regional from Clearwater area<br />
**National Labs <br />
***MB Note: guy gave me study<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Sponsor a study to see what is available<br />
**Find a way to incent carriers to deploy to communities<br />
**Still wrestling w/ other ideas<br />
<br />
==State Supreme Court==<br />
<br />
John R. Peay is the Director of Information Systems at the Idaho Supreme Court<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**1990 agencies came together to discuss the need to grow together for economic development<br />
**Revised agenda in 1994<br />
**Then they formed ITMRC to foster collaboration and set state standards<br />
**Strategy of the state<br />
***Have private industry extend broadband throughout the state<br />
****Impeded by geography<br />
****However, court need fiber capacity delivered to court house in every state<br />
*****Therefore, partnered with Dept. of Transportation (ITD) for rights away <br />
****Driven to deploy for economic development<br />
****Sidestepped because of Y2K<br />
****Has been able to deploy fiber <br />
*****With partnership s w/ Tranportation and Juvenile Courts<br />
*****Has MoU ITD provides technology; Courts helped pay for switches<br />
*How Libraries fit into agenda<br />
**Problem is in the last mile<br />
**ITD, Police, Corrections and Health are well off (they partner)<br />
**Aggregation study was published in 1999, which included libraries<br />
***Not well receivd<br />
**Tension among various stakehoulders<br />
**Everyone keeps to themselves<br />
***Higher Ed, and K12 ignore ITERMC standards<br />
**State interaction w/ local gov’t is prickly (not good)<br />
***Cities form a powerful lobby<br />
**Lack of deployment not totally a technical one-&gt;conservative government that is close with their money<br />
**Libraries have no champion<br />
*Success Factors<br />
**Partnership w/ ITD (for courts)<br />
**Supreme court has some authority over local courts and government<br />
**Made effort to partner with counties (unique for a state agency)<br />
***Got some funding to help build broadband with state support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Financial<br />
**Independence<br />
***Put in computer system to connect all the courts, but courts wanted independence from state gov’t<br />
****Interesting note: now local courts want to be tied in with the state<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Raise public awareness as to the value of libraries<br />
***Partnering with schools to show ed value<br />
**No funds from legislature in 10 year to help b/c of champions<br />
**Right now there is a big push in the state for community colleges<br />
***Possible latching on to this campaign<br />
**Ideas to get infrastructure to counties is there, but connection to libraries is needed<br />
**Technical help<br />
**Funding is key…assistance to libraries to get funding<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Keith Johnson==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2614Idaho State Visit Data2007-04-06T17:27:31Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Syringa Networks==<br />
<br />
*About<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Representative Durst==<br />
<br />
Representative Durst serves on the ITRMC council for the house of representatives in ID.<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**Poor deployment<br />
**Missed several opportunities<br />
**They have not spent money well<br />
**Outside of the urban areas, it is dysfunctional—needs to be more efficient<br />
**4 on a scale of 1 to 10<br />
*Vision for Deployment<br />
**State—no plan<br />
**His vision<br />
***First step is to have somebody in a position to move the deployment forward (having a state CIO, who has the ability to make decisions for the state)<br />
***Next, formulate a plan to allocate broadband throughout the state<br />
****Some constraints and obstacles<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**Serve as catalyst to get access to the Internet---a place to go<br />
**All communities have a library; they need a place to go<br />
**Don’t like to wait<br />
*What have they done to promote broadband?<br />
**$5 million for rural broadband—not used well; was used to increase deployment in areas and they used it in places where it already existed<br />
**ITD used money w/out concern for other agencies<br />
**Lamda Rail—figuring out how research institutions can use this resource <br />
**Broadband Tax incentive-not sure if it is the way to go or not; the way he understands this will work is a user fee<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working w/ ITRMC<br />
***Wants to create a report to study broadband allocation from the state agency perspective<br />
***Get a greater grasp of what the state of things are and where they are going<br />
***Get the Governor onboard<br />
**Lack of attention drawn to broadband<br />
**Backwoods mentality that we need to get over<br />
***From his perspective, ID has not done the best job at being proactive at overcoming their barriers<br />
***People see broadband as a want and not a need<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increasing access to the infrastructure (helping to fund that)<br />
**Important to have an education campaign to increase awareness of the niche that libraries fill<br />
<br />
==Senator Bastion==<br />
<br />
Senator Stan Bastion is the Senate member of ITRMC, a city council member and liason to the local library.<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Need to do more to make it available<br />
**Broadband to the home<br />
**High interest in Qwest to increase fiber deployment<br />
***Has called a meeting w/ mayors <br />
***Senator would like to see libraries get connected via this fiber<br />
**Successful in urban areas<br />
***But this success is no as powerful as Fiber to the Home<br />
**In rural communities, there is less<br />
***High cost<br />
***Trying to get it to schools<br />
*State Policies<br />
**Sees TX as a model with uniform video franchise fee (sees this an incentive for deployment)<br />
**Would like to ITRMC adop uniform standards that include fiber to the communities<br />
**Thought the $5 million matching was good<br />
***Additional funding could help in that area (maybe Gates could match)<br />
*Interventions<br />
**Provide for public/private partnerships<br />
***Matching funds to increase deployment<br />
**Increase fiber deployment<br />
***Establish group of providers to build a network (possibly owned by the state; used analogy of an airport)<br />
***Then charge a fee for carriers to use <br />
**ITRMC can establish standards<br />
<br />
==ITRMC==<br />
<br />
The Information Technology Resource Management Council (ITRMC) is a council made of people who make strategic decisions in regards to how the state agency manages information technology. In a way, it serves as the state CIO by committee. This is an interview w/ its staff.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**16 member council formed in 1996<br />
**Headed up by the Department of Administration<br />
***Includes many departments and stakeholders<br />
**Sets State IT Policy and strategy (but has not regulatory authority<br />
**State does not have a CIO<br />
**Lack authority to force adoption of its recommendations <br />
**Has a small staff to assist council, including in web and telecommunications services<br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Internal to state<br />
**Hodge podge, with no one to take the leadership and coordination <br />
***ITRMC trying to take this position<br />
**Vision-Bring people together to find ways to aggreagate demand<br />
***There is a lack of coordingation to bring people together<br />
*What is ITRMC doing?<br />
**Telecom summit to bring people together to talk about telecom and broadband<br />
***Mapping out who to bring to the table<br />
****If too big of a group, there will be to many to bring to a consensus<br />
****Trying to set scope and boundaries; otherwise no good outcome<br />
*Who are the players?<br />
**Science and Tech Advisory council<br />
**Health quality planning<br />
**Education<br />
**Idaho national labs<br />
***Trying to build Research and education network<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Defining broadband<br />
**Getting a community to speak w/ a unified voice<br />
***They talk a lot but don’t ever get anywhere<br />
*State Networks<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Successful but to a point<br />
***Never realized their full potential because of split<br />
***Political baggage<br />
**Transportation, Public Safety and Military has an effort underway<br />
***They tried to work w/ IDANET but have sense split<br />
**No Focused leadership <br />
*State Policy<br />
**Tax incentive was successful for broadband deployment<br />
***Grew around 200% w/ incentive (was top state for a while and attributes this to the tax incentive<br />
**$5 Million matching grant Accelerated business plans for deployment<br />
***Has helped 80 communities<br />
*Studies<br />
**Regional from Clearwater area<br />
**National Labs <br />
***MB Note: guy gave me study<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Sponsor a study to see what is available<br />
**Find a way to incent carriers to deploy to communities<br />
**Still wrestling w/ other ideas<br />
<br />
==State Supreme Court==<br />
<br />
John R. Peay is the Director of Information Systems at the Idaho Supreme Court<br />
<br />
*Broadband Deployment<br />
**1990 agencies came together to discuss the need to grow together for economic development<br />
**Revised agenda in 1994<br />
**Then they formed ITMRC to foster collaboration and set state standards<br />
**Strategy of the state<br />
***Have private industry extend broadband throughout the state<br />
****Impeded by geography<br />
****However, court need fiber capacity delivered to court house in every state<br />
*****Therefore, partnered with Dept. of Transportation (ITD) for rights away <br />
****Driven to deploy for economic development<br />
****Sidestepped because of Y2K<br />
****Has been able to deploy fiber <br />
*****With partnership s w/ Tranportation and Juvenile Courts<br />
*****Has MoU ITD provides technology; Courts helped pay for switches<br />
*How Libraries fit into agenda<br />
**Problem is in the last mile<br />
**ITD, Police, Corrections and Health are well off (they partner)<br />
**Aggregation study was published in 1999, which included libraries<br />
***Not well receivd<br />
**Tension among various stakehoulders<br />
**Everyone keeps to themselves<br />
***Higher Ed, and K12 ignore ITERMC standards<br />
**State interaction w/ local gov’t is prickly (not good)<br />
***Cities form a powerful lobby<br />
**Lack of deployment not totally a technical one-&gt;conservative government that is close with their money<br />
**Libraries have no champion<br />
*Success Factors<br />
**Partnership w/ ITD (for courts)<br />
**Supreme court has some authority over local courts and government<br />
**Made effort to partner with counties (unique for a state agency)<br />
***Got some funding to help build broadband with state support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Financial<br />
**Independence<br />
***Put in computer system to connect all the courts, but courts wanted independence from state gov’t<br />
****Interesting note: now local courts want to be tied in with the state<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Raise public awareness as to the value of libraries<br />
***Partnering with schools to show ed value<br />
**No funds from legislature in 10 year to help b/c of champions<br />
**Right now there is a big push in the state for community colleges<br />
***Possible latching on to this campaign<br />
**Ideas to get infrastructure to counties is there, but connection to libraries is needed<br />
**Technical help<br />
**Funding is key…assistance to libraries to get funding<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money<br />
<br />
==Keith Johnson==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium=<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Visit_Data&diff=2612Ohio State Visit Data2007-04-04T15:10:26Z<p>Mbard: /* Follow-ups */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
===The History of OIPLIN===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Roger Verney, State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Steve Wood, Cleveland Heights Public Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tony Yankus, currently in State IT office, formerly at OPLIN and State Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OHIOLink formed in mid-80s.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities went to Board of Regents to get new libraries and the Bd of Regents said, no more buildings, share resources instead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
So OhioLink was formed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tom Sanville, head of OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom takes marching orders from academic community. The Academic community is moving closer to public libraries. Some public libraries on OhioLink now. But in the beginning, OhioLink did not want public libraries involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Concept of public libraries piggybacking on OhioLink. Tom said no, not interested. Didn’t need public libraries. One of the criteria for participating in OhioLink was that you had to have Innovative Interfaces Inc. (III). Public libraries were not interested in III. Big metro libraries were on DRA and didn’t want to change to III. Cincinnati and Columbus had homegrown systems. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg Byerly at Kent. Helped to put together OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Don Tolliver from Kent and someone else from Higher Ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greg was hired to create OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Byerly was hired to put together OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also hired to put together InfoOhio. InfoOhio didn’t have money and was a poor stepchild.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council, Fran Haley was the new person at OLC. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Fran was the big leader, combined with Greg Byerly. Greg had the ideas and Fran made it happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dick Cheski was very weak and not much liked. Tony was director of library development at the State Library. Roger came to State Library from Higher Ed. Steve Wood was Director of Cleveland Heights.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran picked carefully people that she wanted to be involved as Co-chairs. Then she invited the entire library community to participate. If you are interested, come to the meetings. Whole library community knew what was happening. Democracy in action. Not done behind closed doors. Tried to involve trustees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Produced the proposal (OPLIN, 1994. Byerly wrote most of it. Got $50,000 from legislature to fund meetings. Dave Miller, on OLC board, got Randy Gardner, a state legislator who became the champion for the project financially. &lt;em&gt;(See Dave Miller’s version of this.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Had great idea in proposal, now how do we get the money? Library community grass roots effort. Greg Browning, head of Budget and Management Office. Got $5 million over two years to start it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Couldn’t happen now. No leadership or money to do it. A lot more money was available. State was rolling in money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
People, need, and money all came together in 1995, July 1. Browning just put the money in the budget and it was funded. Librarians didn’t have to lobby much.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tony was the first Director of OPLIN. March 15, 1996, unveiled first OPLIN web site, gave everybody a T1. Mission: Equity of Access to Information.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In some small libraries, OPLIN pipe was the biggest pipe coming into the area.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
249 out of 250 libraries joined immediately. (Or at least verr soon).&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A lot of talks, dog and pony shows to show what was possible. Had several “summits” to demonstrate. Programs at the association meeting in the fall of 95. Did show and tell of what it might look like. Statewide video conference at 8 sites on Ground Hog Day in 96. Reached 500 staff members that day. Nothing to show on the internet. No WWW yet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Said you can run your automation system on it. Issue in national library community was to get libraries connected to the Internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Under Tony three major things:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• telecommunication connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• access to the internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• a suite of databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Discover Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OH Kids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o What tree is this?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ohio women&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Had the content created for them by others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Major reasons for OPLIN was to provide government information but there was little online information from the government to provide.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget grew to buy PCs for the local libraries. 3 PCs for every library. At least some had to be available for the public. This came from Randy Gardner. $5 million for connectivity and $8 million for PCs and other services such as routers.. This was a one-time deal. Since then, OPLIN has received minimal increase. E-rate has been a big help. Still about $5 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cheski, then State Librarian, tried to get control over OPLIN. Didn’t succeed and quit.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Administrative overhead for OPLIN had to be limited to 3%. Good OPLIN Board. Had a great political sense and management know how. Knew constitueces. Great leadership in John Wallach. Great Executive Committee, solved problems and kept moving.<br />
Tony would come up with ideas and budget proposals, talk about them and the Board supported most of them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Amount Tony accomplished with state contracts for telecom and databases was incredible. Group of children’s librarians. Told them to come up with ideas and they did: Ohio Kids.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meribeth Mansfield wrote an article for LJ. Future of public libraries. Summer of 1997.<br />
Got a lot of attention.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
No time to publicize all the great things they were doing. Did have a big kick-off with Governor present.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN has been independent. Board reported to no one. Mike Lucas, State Librarian after Cheski, donated time of fiscal budget staff to help out. State Library still supports OPLIN in this way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;What made it successful? What factors?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Timing (lots of money available)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Leadership (Fran Haley and Greg Byerly and Tony Yankus)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lot of people got enthusiastic about the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians understood the value of the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lots of libraries already automated.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Grass roots support.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Inclusivity of librarians. Asked local librarians to participate in planning.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Broke down barriers between organizations – Fran was a great communicator&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Dedicated the network library by library with cake, coffee, state representative and senator, mayor. Lots of photo ops and positive publicity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran coordinated this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PR packet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioNet did the training of all the librarians to do everything. This is how you turn on the pc, reboot a router, search a database. How to access the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran had a history of lobbying legislature very successfully. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran was a catalyst to bring people together and coordinate who should talk to whom.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Agreement in library community and good lobbying. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Library Council coordinated the message for the legislature so everybody said the same thing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;How would you start now in a state?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to take the leadership role.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to have the attention of someone in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is the right thing to do and we are going to do it now!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Effective lobbying technique&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Open communication between the legislature and the library community&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Libraries Connect Ohio&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Includes State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Info Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talking about databases, virtual reference, resource sharing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summit on May 21st.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Three library communities are talking more than the past but still better than in the past.<br />
Some of the barriers between public and academic libraries are coming down. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Budget History&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Submitted budget request for 1996-97, OPLIN was included in budget request, $4.8 million over 2 years. General revenue funds. $8 million to buy 3 computers for every public library in Ohio and also one time costs for telecom like routers. Gave money to OPLIN and said could use over 2 years. Software, training also included.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Regional library systems in Ohio, 7 of them. OPLIN used some of these systems for training. Paid systems to do this. One system served as the help desk.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Goal to have every library connected with routers and computers for the public and databases for the public. Two staff to begin with, Tony and an office manager.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Operating costs never grew much. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Now only $4.3 million out of general revenue.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$3 million in spending authority includes erate, database fees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget switched over the years away from the state library and then back to it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In State Library budget then moved to State Aid.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This protected it from budget cuts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2005, was $4.7 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cuts brought it down to $4.3 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2000-01 got $100,000 for filtering. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2006-07 got another $100,000 for each of two years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2002-03 requested OPLIN out of general funds and database resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Funding changes every year. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
MORE – Moving Ohio Resources Everywhere&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Managed by the state library. Public and school libraries participate. Share resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
E-rate has been sporadic over the years. Began to get in 2000. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Difficult to plan. Get some years and not in others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Local libraries lobby first for State Aid. Maybe lobby for OPLIN and maybe not.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Now have seven staff. Worked with OARnet at the beginning and now have an OPLIN support center. Staffing not likely to increase or decrease dramatically. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 1===<br />
====Includes librarians and OCCN and Netmedicine====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library currently the backbone but not sure what this means due to changes. Two hundred and fifty one libraries in state generally speaking all to back to Columbus.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cleveland Heights has 3 T1 connections to the branches. They connect with fiber thru local cable company. All city offices, schools and libraries to central cable head-in branch. They are a part of CLVNET which is a backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library connects straight to backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NEO-RLS (regional cooperative) has 400 potential libraries with 92 public libraries. The main traffic filter and management run thru the library system with 1 T1 from OPLIN and 1 cable line. OPLIN &gt;nearest HUB&gt;400 libraries. Use Time Warner high speed for overflow which is bigger than T1.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN provides connection to library together thru consortiums CLVENET and SEO. SEO consortium is now statewide with 75 libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NetWellness – goes thru university network to Cincinnati hub. Use Internet 2 and state backbone. Website available on Internet 2 and commodity network. No security locks, all information available for everyone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Schools use E-Rate with one school access, some are using 3rd Frontier it just depends on where the school is located. If there is a housing authority then they use cable and/or DSL. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Multi layers of library organizations in Ohio are:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN – created for basic needs but not enough pipes for all services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
INFO Ohio – are the schools network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OHIOnet – academic libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The NEO-RLS works totally with OPLIN on all technical issues but this varies per regional which there are 4 Regionals that serve Ohio. NEO-RLS along with OPLIN takes care of all needs of the users that are paying fees. This is supported thru state and local funds. All libraries are a member of the regional but if they don’t pay fees then they are not provided services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The costs for connections:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
ClevNet - $6,000 per month to OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OCCN – 271 million for schools for full T1 access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NetWellness – uses university network and all costs paid by network, does not know costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library – on backbone and pays the same as ClevNet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN is moving to provide fiber to all users. ClevNet also uses a DS3 which OPLIN pays for.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Shared automation systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Clevenet – 31 libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o SEO – 70 libraries, all small&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public access to the network, social networking. Public access is highest users and internet is highest reason for usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Utube&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o MySpace&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ebay &lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable audio books and video&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Netwellness – health media&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Distance learning. Ohio learning network. Using podcasts, downloadable text 500 courses. Student remote access to do homework.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pent up demand will explode&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How get people in rural areas more BB connectivity and people in urban areas $$ to get BB in the home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 21st century grants keep school libraries open after school but not enough of them. Demand still falls on public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Network open 24 hours a day but the highest use is in the afternoon. Lots of available bandwidth in the middle of the night.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Terminals busy constantly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Time limit on use of computers but this contradicts use for distance learning that might require longer to take a course.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some segregation of use to protect catalog access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – parking lot users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• T-1s segregated wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Come to library to get high speed even if they have a computer at home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Know It Now – virtual reference&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Webinars, WebJunction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Meetings online – interactive video networking for training and meetings. Desk top delivery.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Mind set change – not to use new technology&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Online coursework – distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Lack of bandwidth is holding back technology.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digitization of books/other media, archives, photos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Genealogy resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University of Phoenix model – interactive, virtual schools, distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP – Management of system&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More computer stations for internet access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If citywide BB access to home, library resources would be more available. Some cities are adding citywide wireless access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Would it be more cost effective if all on same BIG pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Video delivery usage is increasing need to be at the get on the band wagon with this service. Would like to see video download available to patron. If the network availability cannot be obtained thru us than they will go around us.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• No one has sufficient bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They limit use of patrons&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers they put out&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to limit in PM when use is highest so makes problem worse&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit types of activities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Timing of training, can’t do in the afternoon&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Demand on system grows and cannot use – slow email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Different size of pipes – get rid of bottlenecks. Only as good as smallest pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works in OPLIN cloud but expensive to cross networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Hard to predict future use, explosive growth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN is trying to replace copper with fiber up to 10 megs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Want scalable fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Look at use growth in past. Increase in order of magnitude. Look at other industries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Will state lines reach a bottleneck nationally or internationally&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber.. Put 10 megs everywhere.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Find weak points – bottleneck and replace with fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Take advantage of research&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Policy makers and industry keep a lid on development to make money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Next generation is fiber and wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Create a think tank on library issues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Watch trends and try to predict&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Possible to replace 3 T1’s with 10 mg of fiber line which should last for awhile but may not last as long as estimated but a second fiber line can be added without additional installation charges which will be the best long term benefit.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Still need to look at the last 5 years and how there has been a double or triple increase in technologic advances and usage and then figure this will continue so as trends keep increase we should plan to expand broadband capabilities as much as possible. Currently OPLIN is watching the trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“It may be good idea to just install 10mg of fiber everywhere. The weak points of fiber need to be found and eliminated, for example the fiber line going into the house is replaced with cooper and this will slowdown processing. “&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“There is a third wire in most house wiring which could be used with phone lines.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Believe that people are doing research (MIT) but not sharing research on information trends with the public. There is a need to check with MIT and other research labs for projects in development. Third frontier needs to have a liaison from the library field to keep abreast of trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Libraries should be brought to the front of the line with think tanks and research on future projects. The fourth element in research and trends is the right time.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Ubiquitous BB throughout state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digital divide – easy convenient, cheap, access to BB &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Same as telephone and TV&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adequate training in use for everybody&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Computer and TV on same box. If cable, can computer connect?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How leverage to get greater access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People read and learn more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Increased information literacy skills&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If get stuck on google, ask “Do you want help from a librarian” – connect directly to librarian who can see what already looked at&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google direct to DB search&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google and libraries get together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Equity of access to next generation network services to information age communities to enable education and economic development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• $$, individual, local libraries, states, get rid of concept to “do more with less”. Need to make the case that high speed connectivity is a good thing to have, need to pay for it. Ohio’s new government “gets it”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership – political. Need to capture $$ for the right project. Higher priority on political agenda. The new Ohio governor seems interested in Broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Elitist mind set that not everybody needs high speed connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T, monoploly without any government control. 2/3 of OPLIN comes through the private sector; 1/3 through higher ed network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership in the private sector&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Turfism – 3 networks, benefit to get together but they don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Librarians don’t want to change&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN applies for its connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Individual libraries apply for POTS and any additional connectivity beyond &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State gets $70 million from e-rate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Don’t like erate because&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Perception that paperwork is onerous (but it really isn’t)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Eligibility changes every year&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Needs to be simplified&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o CIPA – Library by library, funding through OPLIN, $100,000 in state funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Actually, once you learn how to fill out the forms, it’s not that bad.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN – Helps with LAN as well as WAN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Regional libraries – respond to technical problems, try and analyze where the problem is&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Own staff in medium to large public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Research think tank to help libraries plan for the future&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocacy – people listen to the Gates name&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• States that don’t have much connectivity get $$ to help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Get states to work together. There is currently little communication between states&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocate with Governors’ about BB policy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Establish a national grant program for libraries to apply to do innovative projects&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ T-1 is laughable., Need a formula based on need and use.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide an equal big pipe to all based on high use. “Internet use is a self fulfilling prophesy.” All libraries will fill a bib pipe. Need video to desktop.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Long term effort to track over time. Need a tool for evaluation need and planning.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Need to look at how they big/whole picture is changing over time and provide national leadership.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 2===<br />
====All Librarians====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• All in OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Central Library Consortium, connect directly to CLC then CLC’s connects to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Road Runner through Time Warner Cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o ILS has 1 T1 through OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Internet through Cable, not sure of speed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Columbus&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Now&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 2-3 T1s to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg to library data center&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg from OPLIN to Internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 50 meg to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 100 meg to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Cheaper using fiber for new network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New configuration could be a big bottleneck&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Worthington, 10 meg to OPLIN for each branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2 T-1 to Columbus for ILS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 ptp between branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Redundancy over OPLIN lines&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Delaware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 franctionalized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ to main&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ¼ to each of the brances&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to big branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to main with franction to small branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated wirelnees from Time Warner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OPLIN lines paid directly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Extra telecom lines from libraries budget&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Erate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Scalable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Yes, ask OPLIN who askes State IT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Do a load survey to see&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State IT notifies if there’s a problem&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ethernet in Worthington&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN negotiated the contract&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T paid to bring the line across public road&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library paid from road to library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Everybody trying to move to fiber because T-1s are too expensive&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• ILS – 70% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public internet – 80% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – one libraries shuts it off at night so public can’t use from parking lot BUT extending to nearby parks during the day&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff resources to central databases, 15% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Large emails – remote from home for public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote access in general&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High definition resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Audio and visual downloads&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• &lt;strong&gt;People come to the library to learn how to do this and then go home and do it but while they are learning they do it at the library&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• E-book download&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Basic tech training for users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Productivity suites&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Download more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Music&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Videos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP in more rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More digital collections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Interavtive web site with a community bulletin board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More workstations&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Web casts – story times&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Voicera – Star trek communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patron generated ILL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote connectivity – can’t get into library catalog&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow and dropped access to web&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff access to resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Segregate lines ½ staff and 2/3 public&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee only for phones&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gurantee ILS over everything else&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vacera – badge communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Inconsistency in vendor market – service is bad – can’t keep track of IP addresses, slow response&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Price, what can you afford. Compare price and found 50 megs was only a little more than 10 megs in cost.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• What’s available in the community? Industry availability in rural area, Most users to not have BB access. Build a highway in community and supposed to be stringing fiber with it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Monitor bandwidth to determine use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tech plans every 3 years so plan then for new technology and branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trend analysis&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract for shorter terms with clauses for scalability at a certain price&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ILS talk to each other and patron generated ILL, enough bandwidth for this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How much? - depends on the library and &lt;strong&gt;how long the community stays rural&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• As much bandwidth for staff and public to do what they want and need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library service 24-7&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library set the standards for public internet access (restaurants, etc. have to live up to library reputation)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Proactive with new technology and new content – movies, games, without worrying about bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocating for industry standards so don’t have to teach different technologies to public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Work with feds to discover resources – e government&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $$ State funding has been static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Local competition with police and fire for $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Geography&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vendor choice – lack of competition&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Infrastructure plan&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State and local orgs, companies don’t talk about their plans. Law if unintended consequences. Need more coordination&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o No collaboration in place to make decisions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Need to communicate about their plans&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lack of cooperation in planning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Local staffing and technology expertise&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Voting public doesn’t understand new role of libraries Need for technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Technical expertise for configuration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Understanding of the public about the role of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• CIPA – all filter but one&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filter at different levels controlled by parental approval and bar code&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Apply?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o POTS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Telecom if not by OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Problems?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Forms “Biggest bureaucracy in the whole world”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2-3 months full time for staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Difficult to contract in their time frame&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Rules and regulations keep changing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vendor doesn’t send the $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Long drawn out process&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BUT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Worth a lot of money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Own staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Paid consultant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN and OPLINTech list serv&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trade and professional literature, share information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract with regional cooperatives&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• WebJunction and other online resurces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State direct for sudden and drastic problems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Make a deal with industry to offer long term service at good rates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pressure on Hollywood etc to offer more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Alternate sources of bandwidth such as over electric lines. Plug into electric outlet to get bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide line directly in certain rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test MS products first. Get systems stable and backward compliant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test software –special grants to make sure new computers can run new software&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Value of OPLIN? What makes it a success?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Stable and funded&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Listens to individual libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adds to services and improves services, not static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances needs of large metro and small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances politics&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works with OLC (professional public library association) to get needs to General Assembly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works closely with state network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Communicates well and facilitates communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Brought email to libraries in the state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lot of networks –have trouble working together. Afraid there is duplication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Maintain identify and communicate well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works well with state library to do training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Ohio is a library rich state and a lot of library organizations are looking at their missions and how to improve services. All libraries and library organizations are having trouble trying not to duplicate efforts and working together. Adding to this is the fact that libraries are not expecting each organization to do specific or certain things for them.<br />
Many libraries are having trouble maintaining their identify and communicating well and are pulled in too many different directions”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Greg Byerly===<br />
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;See also interviews with OPLIN pioneers and Dave Miller&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
How it all started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Article in library hi tech in 1996. Vol 14, issues 2-3, 1996.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Similar document for OhioLink and InfoLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
All three networks started with OCLC. OCLC was to do two things, mechanize production of catalog cards and a realtime circ system for Ohio universities. State of Ohio gave money to start.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
1988, Bd of Regents looking at requests to build buildings. Regents said no more money to build more libraries because everything would be electronic. So university libraries upset so came up with regional storage facilities in 1986. Asked for money for storage facilities. Asked for money for a network to have an online integrated circulation system for all universities $2.1 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Grey was at Kent state and started NOTICE. Dean of libraries at Kent and Ohio State were on the commission to start OhioLink. Greg kept giving ideas and he got invited to go to a meeting with the regents. Wanted OhioLink in 9-12 months. Greg asked to start it up in two years. Loaned from Kent State to OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Organized process to get everyone involved. 16 universities plus 2 private universities. Key getting 3 people from every university on a task force or committee. Huge RFP with vendors demonstrating what they could do.. 150 people at vendor presentations. Got all these people to participate. Miracles don’t happen if try and do quickly. Need to take time to get people to agree. Need smaller universities and large university to get on the same system. Originally 18 libraries had 13 different systems. Get everybody involved so that when a decision had to be made, they were all in agreement. Joined III. First big customer of III.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio in 1987-88 had gotten its first supercomputer. Telecom networks between all universities. Original OhioLink Board had two people, one from OARnet and one from state IT. Everybody wins if everybody gets bigger computers. Everything came together at the right time. System became the backbone of the internet. It became technologically possible to link everybody together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Public libraries didn’t have a clue. Bd. of Regents was afraid that the public libraries would steal their thunder and do something. Greg had loyalties to both public and academic. Told public libraries and they didn’t seem to care. 1985 was when they got a lot of money in change of state aid. Big tension between 7 major metros and rural. Everyone was trying to stake their claim. Public libraries were happy because they had a lot of money. In 1991 didn’t see a need to combine resource into a network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
InforOhio – In 1989, even before III contract. School libraries in NE Ohio wanted to start an OhioLink for the schools. Greg felt schools couldn’t do it because too many and not connected. BUT…&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Educational Computer Network. Already linked all the schools over a separate state network. Had nothing to do with libraries. Allowed communication over state lines but only to the schools. Public libraries and academic libraries received big infusions of money from the state level to do this. Schools have never had this infusion of money. InfoOhio had its first libraries online in 1991. Greg did a bid process for school libraries. 23 regional computer sites. Schools connect to one of the regional sites and then to OECN and to each other. Now called ITCs or Instructional Technology Center. These are run locally with a board of local superintendents. Buy software programs for school lunch, bus schedules. School libraries also connected. About half of the Superintendents or on the Board. Some of the ITCs get cheaper rates for databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran Haley came to Ohio to head OLC. 1994 called Greg. Knew about OhioLink. Asked why there is no OhioLink for public libraries. Fran and OLC hired Greg in 1994 to develop the 1994 plan. That paper asked for 5 million dollars over two years to get this done. Governor gave them 4.6million. Announced in state of the budget. Legislators called and asked, if you get an extra $8 million can you do it all? They said yes. This was the beginning of funding for OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg said had to get on state network. Fran said, why aren’t they? Greg said, they had never asked. Asked to get on and did. Had to get in early so considered as the network expanded. Met with Tim Steiner and other in state network. If had money behind it, then his duty as a state network to serve public libraries. He does lottery, highway patrol, everything expanding rapidly. Public libraries were the slowest to get involved. By waiting it became more possible for disparate for libraries to talk to each other. OhioLink everybody had to be on the same system. By the time public libraries joined, that was no longer necessary.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Over 2400 school libraries all use Sirsi/Dynix. InfoOhio is Sirsi/Dynix largest customer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom Sanville, director of OhioLink. One of the fiercest persons to get statewide contracts for databases. First was Proquest in 1996.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Libraries Connect has the State Library, OPLIN, OhioLink, and InfoOhio working together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN got EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
InfoOhio got small subset of Proquest.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Finally got together to do one state wide bid for general publications which was EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cooperate for database contracts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Make a lot of sense in theory to be one network but where they have to work together they work together very well. Mike Lucas called these meetings for them to meet and talk about common issues.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg lobbied for Lib Connect Plus. Several times a year this group expands to include the 3 professional associations and library school.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
SchoolRoom – online portal for elementary schools. Federated search. Looks at school libs, public libs, databases, and best websites chosen by teachers, and google sites.<br />
Sirsi-Dynis. Rooms. Have room for different searches.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Feels 3 networks work. Libraries Connect does what’s necessary for cooperation. Each network has its own funding stream. Each runs on its own subset of state system. Academic use I2.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN established by OLC. State Library was not at all interested in OPLIN. Participated in OhioLInk so didn’t care. High contention between Cheski and OPLIN. Day OPLIN got funded, Cheski retired. Set OPLIN separate so was not part of State Library. Now?? State Library tried once to get OPLIN. No reason OPLIN couldn’t function with state library. But why rock the boat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN works best on state network. Push state to get better rates. With a new governor who is doing Broadband Initiative. Cooperation is good. Don’t think can get a better contract that state can.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Success factors:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Participation getting everyone involved, no surprises, here is what we are planning, get involved&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Well connected, respected leaders in an advisory council&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two trustees, library directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Working librarians who actually know and do something&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Task force on administration, money, procedures, policies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two people from board as chairs and task forces do work&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Committees under task forces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Get directors to let staff come&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Had regional meetings. Handed out draft of document. Get seven metro libraries to buy in. Cleveland send top tech people to serve so other big metros asked to have their people on it as well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Organization that goes behind it led by someone neutral – Greg and Fran&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Someone that goes to all the meetings and takes notes and puts it all together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC paid them a little money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vision to do this and ignoring any perceived barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Blasted through barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Acknowledge barriers and then overcome them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Could be done now. Public librarians are bummed because not getting an increase.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State Libraries efforts to do resource sharing. MORE – Moving Online Resources Everywhere. LSTA gave 11 million to schools to automate school libraries. Maybe state library should now spend money another way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Replicate in other states what has happened in Ohio and Missouri&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Send people to meetings&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Neutral people&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Frustration with Gates.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Spends money on Smaller Learning Communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Divide big school into small school&lt;br/&gt;<br />
These people know nothing about school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates doesn’t see value of school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Dave Miller===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Chairman of the...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Dave came in after the librarians got the ball rolling.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg Byerly really got it started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council (OLC) got behind the idea and it became a reality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was president of OLC. Not involved in working with Greg. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was in Columbus for something else. Got a call from OLC asking if he would call state representative to lobby for more funding from general assembly for operational spending for public libraries. Went to a pay phone to call the state representative sponsoring the bill.. His was the 8th call for same thing. Many librarians had already called. Randy Gardner is now a state senator. He said he agreed but was cutting funding percentage. It was a good year for one time funding. Governor had already put in a budget request for 4.5 million for OPLIN but would not bring it inside libraries. Most of big libraries has the money to bring it inside. Many of the small ones could not afford it. Standing in a wet phone booth, Miller asked for state to provide the money to bring OPLIN inside the library and internet work stations for the public. How much?<br />
Dave came up with $5 million. 250 library districts at the time times about $10,000 per library. Passed the house. Senate approved $10 million. Settled on $ 8 million.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Helped to get all the libraries involved. Also gave Tony Yankus the resources to pay for training services for the library. In Governor’s 4.5 million didn’t provide for any training. Bought computers, routhers, training, databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Miller is now chair of state library board. He moved to that after he was chair of OLC Board.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
His role with OPLIN now is to support the use of LSTA funds to supplement databases. <br />
They will have a retreat next week. Get newsbank. OPLIN, Ohio-Link, and Info Ohio work together to get databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The State Library approves OPLIN board member but based on their recommendations. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Come close to bringing OPLIN into the state library. For various reasons their board said no. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Advantage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Line item under state library budget but not part of state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Provide services for them&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HR services&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Bookkeeping, Diane Fink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Monitors their books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Technical report due and state library IT people do the report&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General assembly approves OPLIN budget through state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Protection not as strong&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Disadvantages&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN doesn’t have 100% trust in state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library Bd blocked two OPLIN Board members to be OPLIN Directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When OPLIN got funded, Dick wanted it to be part of the state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Factors that lead to success&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tony Yankus was the right person for the job&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Tony and Grey Byerly can see things others can’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vision of how it can all come together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Laid firm foundation then the challenge was gone for Tony&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC coming into its own. Created OLC from OLA and OLTA.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Academics pulled out into their own organization and formed OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Had the right energy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Did some things the state library might do but didn’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o &lt;strong&gt;If OLC said something was good, they would believe it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Flip flop between prof and trustee as president of OLC (used to 10 years ago, still?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Very active professional librarians on the board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC sold people on the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lot of credibility&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• With funding, didn’t take long to get down to medium-sized and small libraries. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High energy,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People satisfied with progress, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Easy to use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vigorous training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Everything worked the way it should&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lots of people enthusiastic about sharing information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Saw how internet could be a partner to their own libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Voinevietch deserves a lot of credit for his willing to fund the vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Should networks merge? Would have some administrative cost savings. They are getting there through cooperation on databases. Some public libraries are joining OhioLink. General Assembly would love to see them merge. School libraries not well funded. InfoOhio is weaker. There are now 3 executive directors: OPOIN, OhioLink, InfoOhio. Through attrition might be able to work all of this out. Not want to invest a lot of time championing but the General Assembly could force it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Turf issues. Asked for plus and minus of merger. All minuses.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Use LSTA funds for databases. State Library continues to provide support additional.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Implement the OPLIN model. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could happen in any state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do you have the commitment of the GA or Governor?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do what Voinovich did. Get BB to doors of libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Use model of Ohio and Missouri with other state GA and Governor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==John==<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Networks Morning Focus Group===<br />
<br />
As part of the morning focus groups, Stephen Hedges of OPLIN, Shawn Walsh of the Northeast Ohio Regional Library System and Glen Horton of the Southwest Ohio Neighboring Libraries. Here are my notes.<br />
<br />
The session’s notes are augmented with a separate group of notes from a meeting with the OPLIN staff.<br />
<br />
*History<br />
**State put out bid for postalized rates to connect everyone, which resulted in the SOMACS contract<br />
**This put in place a standard $450 per month per T1 line for government<br />
**Public libraries were able to buy into the contract<br />
***To get the state to pay for it, they emphasized the need for equity of access<br />
***So they set up OPLIN<br />
**All T1s in the state go back to Columbus to be connected to the Internet by the Ohio Office for IT<br />
*OARNET<br />
***The state-wide network for higher ed<br />
***Connects 90 colleges and universities<br />
**Originally purchased off of SOMACS contract<br />
**Have gone through a network re-design<br />
***Build a new network w/ 1600 miles of fiber<br />
***Connects Higher Ed, K12 and public television<br />
***Several backbone rings throughout the state<br />
***Would like to continue to link entities<br />
*OPLIN<br />
**Manages the contracts for the public libraries<br />
**only drives out connectivity to the main branch of a public library—does not connect all of the branch ibrary<br />
***Libraries can buy into the state contract to get the postalized rate to connect branches<br />
***If the branch libraries connect to OPLIN via the T1+ back to Columbus, OPLIN pays for Internet Connectivity at the State IT OFfice<br />
**Manages the customer service to libraries<br />
**Funding comes from state appropriation and from E-Rate<br />
**Clevenet<br />
***The libraries around Cleveland all share a ILS<br />
***Built own regional network<br />
***To save money, OPLIN funds T1s from Cleveland to libraries and then a DS3 to Columbus<br />
**What OPLIN does well<br />
***Bought quality routers<br />
***Networking consulting for internal wiring<br />
***Support center at the state level<br />
****Goes beyond authority to provide all types of support for libraries, as is requested<br />
**Challenges of OPLIN<br />
***Subscription database authentication<br />
***Network level cache servers<br />
***Anticipation increase in demand because of VOIP and Video<br />
***Getting enough training to public libraries<br />
***Viruses, adware and spyware eating up bandwidth<br />
***Bottleneck @ last mile<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Approx 50% of libraries are CIPA compliant<br />
**But they apply for telecomm charges to pay for the T1<br />
**Does not receive E-Rate to pay OIT to pay for access to the commodity Internet<br />
*Governance<br />
**Has a governing board that serves OPLIN from an advisory perspective instead of a governance modle<br />
**OPLIN reports to the state library office, where the appropriation is made to <br />
*Office for IT<br />
**Manages the last mile<br />
**Manages the network end to end<br />
**Allocates the amount of bandwidth that is needed to connect entities.<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**State funding to libraries (in OH 80-85% is from state gov’t)<br />
**Have a friendly face for customers<br />
***Someone to talk non-techie to the community<br />
**Putting computers out there and providing training<br />
**Statewide service system<br />
**Find a lot of users<br />
*challenges<br />
**No unified vision to put new backbone in place<br />
***Current model was sufficient 10 years ago, but does not scale well<br />
**Getting content out to libraries<br />
***Difficulty with streaming video taking up the bandwidth<br />
**Getting fiber out to the libraries<br />
**Adding a caching server (they indicated a difficulty in getting one installed and working properly)<br />
*Determining bandwidth<br />
**Old policy was everyone gets a T1<br />
**New policy of .01 Mbps per public workstation + .015 per staff workstation<br />
***Does not think this will scale well in the future<br />
*Driving Force<br />
**Equity of access<br />
**Ohio Library council (the state public library professional association<br />
*Services from OPLIN<br />
**Circuit charges<br />
**Databases<br />
**Manages routers and the routes out to the Ohio IT Office<br />
**Customer Service<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Training by State Library<br />
*Regional Library Consortiums Provide:<br />
**Web hosting<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Traning<br />
**Some technical support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working with decision makers<br />
**# of computers is limited<br />
**E-Government<br />
**Trained Staff<br />
*Gates interventions<br />
**Take over technical operations<br />
**Having connectivy and using it are 2 different things<br />
**Recommends funding webhosting <br />
**Grants to figure out how to use the connection<br />
**Education to librarians<br />
**Sell Equity of Access<br />
**Encourage state funding<br />
***Lobbying<br />
***Everyone loves libraries<br />
**Funding for wireless Equipment<br />
**Putting together a support structure<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru===<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
===Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio===<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
===Anthony Yankes===<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru==<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
==Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio==<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
==Anthony Yankes==<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Greg Byerly===<br />
I talkd about your broadband deployment in Ohio question with Roger Verny, Deputy Ohio State Librarian, and we discusse how just as OPLIN was based on equity of access, broadband availability also needs to be based on equity of access. The underserved areas need access to resources that developed areas do. The way you get to resources today is through broadband access. The Gates Foundation needs to lend not only its money but its political cache in reducing the digital divide. They need to be the Champion.<br />
<br />
===Don Walsch OARNET===<br />
<br />
The key factor was the State of Ohio's decision to establish a strategic plan for networking which established at T1 as the desired standard for connectivity, and then the state need to create an environment where this level of service would be affordable statewide for all State Agencies including libraries, K-12 schools and higher education. As a result of issuing an RFP, which include all state entities, the state received favorable pricing due to the volume of the contract and the term which was 10 years. This approach is currently being considered in the next generation broadband where a T1 is no longer an adequate standard and we are looking to set a new goal to provide a range of ethernet connectivity (10 megabits to 1 gigabit) as the new standard. <br />
With the integration of voice, data, video and internet services using IP there will be rapidly increasing broadband requirements. As with the previous approach the key is to establish the standard and set that as the state goal and then to develop an RFP for the private sector to compete for the best price and options to deliver this service. We are also looking at expanding the scope to include all state, local and federal governments in the state as well as research faciities, education and education related and healthcare. The theory is by further expanding the eligibility entities the pricing may be more favorable in the RFP.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Missouri_State_Visit_Data&diff=2611Missouri State Visit Data2007-04-04T15:10:03Z<p>Mbard: /* Don Walsch OARNET */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
===Columbia Focus Group===<br />
===Columbia, Missouri - March 2, 2007&lt;br/&gt;Focus Group===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
All the libraries are on MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
All the libraries and their branches have a minimum T-1 line.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some have of T-3&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Funding&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Paid for based on a formula of:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Part state money (REAL) (pays for local routers, some local connections, and databases)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Part local money on a formula ranging from $600 - $20,000&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• E-rate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Main problems are with local phone companies who may not have the same quality as MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Is it scalable? If you experience slow down in response rate-does MOREnet catch or do you? MOREnet notices it before the library—during high traffic the library does notice/cost goes up if need to add bandwidth/may give fraction of a t1 if need to increase bandwidth, don’t have to get a full t1—if doing something to maximize pipeline there is not additional cost.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt; 2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Current Uses&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Streaming media – audio visual&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public access computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ILS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Video conferencing and programming (Legislative updates)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming and social networking – flash animation eats up bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote usage (database access, reserves)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VPN with Branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Security&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable video and audio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Future Uses&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library online, more of a community center, a virtual library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Book clubs on line&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Federated and visual search&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Customized web interface based on electronic profiling based on informatin on the library card&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Automatic notification of books or programs based on profiling&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Podcasting of book reviews, children’s story hour&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable audio and visual&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming for teens&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Second life and other social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More databases so people don’t have to come to the library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
They don’t really have any problems because MOREnet anticipates their bandwidth needs and provides them with increased bandwidth as they need it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Some slow down in the middle of the afternoon due to student use but nothing major.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet does all the planning for them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6.If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
See above&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They don’t have any barriers. MOREnet does it all.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most barriers have to do with weather impact on cooper wires, loss of city power, different phone companies. MOREnet negotiates for repairs or restoration of service.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries? <br />
Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
How does CIPA impact? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet applies for all the telecommunication e-rate funds for them. They just have to do the technology plan for MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some apply for their own erate funds for POTS and internal connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Erate is complicated and for some not worth the effort&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• For others, it brings in needed dollars.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet provides the filtering as well. Only Columbia does not filter and they pay extra to be off the filtering.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
For the MOREnet services, MOREnet provides everything. Other than MOREnet, assistance comes from:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MLNC training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Own staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MORE technic peer assistance via email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet conferences&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• KCMLIN – Training on applications&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• WebJunction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Some have done studies to see how much their internet services would cost without MOREnet. Some said they would have no computers for the public at all.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Support MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tell other states about MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Encourage multi-state networks&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Support REAL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocate lighting dark fiber. Management of issues relating to this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Equipment and software and routers and switchs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;u&gt;Why/How MOREnet&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Why and how did MOREnet get established from their point of view.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• There were equal partners between school, public, and academic libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They showed the efficiencies of aggregation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The State Library set up a committee to figure out how to get internet to rural parts of the state. They established REAL which initially stood for Rural Electronic Access to Libraries and then became Remote electronic Access to Libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Bill Mitchell was instrumental. He had vision and provided leadership of what could be done with internet access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• He delivered an inspiring message of what the internet could do for rural communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They held a conference (MOREnet Conferences) to see what others were doing. Demonstration of uses. Sent the message “If we can do it, so can you.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Rural public libraries and school districts got computers at the same time. This showed true equality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They gave out 20 grants: 10 for 56k lines and 10 for dial up. This was the REAL appropriation from the legislature.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wrote letters to politicians about how important REAL was.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet provided email to legislators for free&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• This aggregation created a market for telecom companies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The library community are good advocates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• There are topnotch tech people at MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet supported local ISPs at the beginning. Often, MOREnet provided the only internet access in town.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Teleconference Focus Group===<br />
===Missouri Focus Group===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;March 1, 2007&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;em&gt;Note: This was a slightly abbreviated focus group. Not all of the questions were asked&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable? &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
Rolling Hills: Use MOREnet and also Cable companies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T3 into one library and cable access at all four libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Internet goes through T3. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Usage: MOREnet comes to them and tells them they need more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Mid-Continent: MOREnet 20meg connection, used to be ATM&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Buy separately from AT&amp;T Frame relay. T-1s some bandwidth problems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Springfield: ½ through MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
10 meg at main facility.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
City utilities connections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T-1 connections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Moving to MOREnet for those facilities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
St. Louis: Main at central, was 10meg and at 96% capacity. From MOREnet<br />
Now have 20 meg and now at 75% of that line.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
17 locations about the city and that comes from AT&amp;T but get bottled up.<br />
Funding: Comes out of normal operation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Streaming video and audio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Blogs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Subscription databases, Rosetta Stone&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloaded video from recorded books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Video conferencing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limited bandwidth at some places but limited.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Prioritizing traffic. Hold out putting out new computers until have bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Prioritizing traffic. Video is low priority.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library automation traffic is only 6% of traffic.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP prioritize voice to ensure quality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• More video conference at all of the facilities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Share interesting programs at multiple locations&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have computer wants around system&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More public computers. One branch wants 10 more computers and waiting for bandwidth to install.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• YA department wants gaming.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remove restrictions on wireless connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Sufficient bandwidth between main trunks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Between main and branches is the bottleneck.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Need bandwidth to put out more computers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Turned sound on had a huge impact. Can watch news, or music videos. Did damage to data connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Every time free up a bottleneck another one occurs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet does a good job of planning.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How much depends on philosophy and what they allow patrons to do. Not a numbers game.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Not say that a certain number of computers means certain bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 30 or 40 PCs at a branch. Process of trying to figure out what they allow to go on the PCs. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 10 years ago ½ T-1 might be ok. With 15 computers T1 is the lowest to consider.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 50 PCs 2 T1s&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• T1 is minimum for even small connection.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Rely on MOREnet to anticipate growth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Next generation network is scaled to meet long range goals.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
7. What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Communication on what MOREnet provides.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Not sure what MOREnet provides. Only one connection to the library or more??&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• In rural areas, infrastructure limits build out&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet bidding those in bulk. If doing it alone, could not do it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Aggregation makes it work so have to serve rural as well as urban.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet does erate for internet. Does own internal connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Rules are always changing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Yearly time constraints.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• After to apply for following year.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Between aug and jan may be tracking 3 years at one time&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet does the filtering for some.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Check out the MOREnet solution&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Worth the money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• In house network so talk to AT&amp;T. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Talk with vendors from who got routers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• City&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• MOREnet for internet connections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• For smaller libraries, depend on MOREnet for all support. Could not do it without MOREnet. MOREnet tracks usage, problems, etc.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gates gives money. Problem isn’t bandwidth (St. Louis) but maintenance of computers. Gates has helped.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Fund MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Help with misc equipment inside the library like switches and firewall. Want to isolate public computers from private network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funding for telecom/networking fee.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Just the Gates name brings positive attention.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The fact that he supports, believes in and supports libraries makes a big difference.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
SUMMARY&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In Missouri, we know about roads. What happens when you don’t maintain the roads? What happens to citizens when they buy nice cars and try to run them on gravel roads?<br />
Broadband is needed not just from Gates but state and federal government. We need an Eisenhower initiative to build the network. We can prolong the life of a computer but need the high speed highways to drive on.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
It is a public issue the state should understand that they need to maintain the state highways and not take private money to do this. This is a state and federal necessity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Additional Resources===<br />
MOREnet Branch Connection Policy http://www.more.net/programs/real/branch.html<br />
&lt;br/&gt;Campus Connction Poliy http://www.more.net/programs/real/librarycampusconnection01.html<br />
<br />
===Missouri State Library Staff Interview===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Carl Wingo, Technology and Digitzation Services Consultant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Barbara Reading, Library Development Director&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Role of the State Library in establishing MOREnet&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet established.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Criteria for local public libraries to join. State library screened.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Had to have two computers for the public, networked.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Collected data. If didn’t have computers or networks or whatever, the state library encouraged/assisted the local libraries to get it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library used LSTA and LSCA funds to help libraries get to the level where they could join REAL. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries had to have an email account and come to training once they were accepted in the REAL program.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet set up a help desk.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When a library was accepted, MOREnet goes out and installs network, routers, etc.<br />
MOREnet had user groups.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Training paid for by state appropriation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet would also review local infrastructure network configurations and do a consult but would not go out and provide direct technical support through a visit.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library approves local technology plans so MOREnet could apply for erate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OCLC rep M-LINK was a big partner and great help doing training and road show&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Technology standards&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Established technology standards for equipment.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
People got practice in justifying why they needed equipment or connections. The state library would go out and help them make the case to city government.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional library director groups formed and meet regularly and help coach each other along. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Directors and techies each have an email list and they shared information about policies and trouble shooting. This turned into legislative clout which MLA used..&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Addresses isolation that rural libraries feel.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Not use WebJunction much at the state library. Not a partner and not buying coupons now. Push people toward MOREnet instead. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Because MOREnet was handling the connectivity so well, the State Library could deal with applications and policies and leveraging grants to keep making progress.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Factors contribution to success:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Collaboration at the top&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Support from state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Financial help at the local level from state, federal, gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Education of schools, libraries, and universities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need to access internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Integrated network of school, public, academic&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Immediate feedback on applications from internet access and database access, digitization&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also retrospective conversion grants&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Show Me the World development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Virtual integrated catalog using OCLC Worldcat&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Group catalog: First search results are Missouri holdings&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Pay for online ILL&lt;br&gt;<br />
Have general databases, health, business, newspapers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Students come in for homework&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Missouri Virtual Schools might also have an impact.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;What can Gates do?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Influence e-rate to lessen paperwork.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Pay for a roadshow to demonstrate what you can get with more bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Carl Fuchs===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Department of Elementary and Secondary Education&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Director of new Virtual School Initiative&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Involved in the beginning of MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Worked with Bill Mitchell at Univ. of Missouri, who was running the computer system.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
There were developing own network in Columbia, MO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Began to brainstorm about Columbia’s needs and realized that a lot of public libraries needed connection as well.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Felt it was important to have a state run network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Set up a network in Columbia of the school, public library, and university and then expanded it around the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Curt and Bill traveled around the state to convince people that a statewide network was a good idea. They tried to convince people that the whole state really needed a network. Particularly in Missouri where there are so many rural areas. A lot of small schools and public libraries needed internet access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
With support from local communities they were able to go to the legislature. They convinced the legislature to fund the network. They used the concept of accessibility, particularly in rural areas so students could get to the internet. They talked about the haves and have nots. The Capitol wanted everybody to be treated equally.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
It was very important that they had the right people at the table.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools, Department of Education&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Public libraries, MLA, State Library and State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
University of Missouri&lt;br/&gt;<br />
City government in Columbia but they dropped out when talks turned to state wide.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Legislators&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Have to have the right people at the table.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have similar needs of users. Able to do so many new things when they work together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The key players are still at the table.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Once it’s established, also important to have the right people on the table over time.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Barriers to the network&lt;/u&gt;<br />
Fear of change&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fear of losing local control&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They overcame this by providing them what they didn’t have – internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They talked about the amount of resources available on the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They did demonstrations of what will be available once the network is in place.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They did a “dog and pony show” to demonstrate the uses on the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
“Nothing better than a dog and pony show.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They talked that the service could provide statewide contracts for resources that would allow everybody to have access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When they bought EBSCO for the first time people said “WOW”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
They had to build the interest statewide. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Membership in MOREnet is voluntary so they had to convince local communities AND legislature that it was worth while.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Use of MOREnet&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video conferencing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Data base access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
It has become a way of life that is taken for granted. All data is collected on MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Their acquisition system for data is dependent on MOREnet. If there is a threat, then people complain.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some people think it can be done cheaper but it would not as good. They might have internet connection but not all the other services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet also provides the training. No other place does this. They have a help desk that people can call. They do train the trainer workshops. Network security. CISCO training. Not as much end-user training but rather through the help desk and train the trainers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MOREnet not only provides access but does not leave local libraries “out there holding the bag.” This is a way to mitigate fear. They not only provide the service but help them with problems. Some small school and libraries still don’t have the technical staff. Down time on MOREnet is minimal, almost non-existent. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Next issue big issue is increasing bandwidth. The new school system is a heavy bandwidth user. The Missouri Virtual School is mainly students who will access the Internet at home. May not have much impact on MOREnet if they access but home but could have if they access from the public library.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;New Services needed&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need more bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Whole organization of MOREnet is to provide internet service throughout the state plus a lot of extra services. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
REAL – money from legislature that goes to state library then to MOREnet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This money provides databases and “tail circuits” last mile.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$2.9 million. There is a membership fee to belong to MOREnet. Assessed on population and some other factors.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The State library charges the MOREnet fees and sets a formula so all libraries pay. The least pays about $500 for small libraries to $20,000 for large libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Public library participation goes through state library budget.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Higher ed and elem and sec schools goes through higher ed budget.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Internet 2&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of excitement but little benefit to school and public libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Higher ed may have a different answer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Video streaming&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools are purchasing videos online to show as part of the curriculum.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Future issues&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State funding. Legislators take it for granted.&lt;br&gt;<br />
Bandwidth demand. Applications are using more bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
There is a lot of bureaucracy MOREnet has to deal with because they are part of a major university.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
RFPs have to go through university and can take months.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MU concerned that if MOREnet goes out of business, MU doesn’t want to be left holding the bag. Put policies in place to protect themselves.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Rely on MOREnet for the vision for the future. They take a leadership role in this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Future of broadband for libraries&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have a statewide network like MOREnet. MOREnet negotiates all the contracts for the state. Aggregates demand.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Gates&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Subsidy for the last mile.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Equipment&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Development of content (current and historical)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Make more things available electronically&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
LYNNE<br />
Conference Call with Cable Reps<br />
<br />
Nancy and Mark pulled together excellent notes about our joint sessions in Missouri. The only &quot;solo&quot; interview I did was a conference call with 3 cable system representatives. Only one of them seemed to recognize anything about libraries, education and cable TV and it seemed to me that he got some perspective from other work environments, not from his current cable job. The other reps were sort of helpful but not informed about libraries nor had ever had conversations with Missouri library people. They did acknowledge that there could have been others in their respective companies that had been involved with the state network, MORENET, libraries, etc. One of them cited a free cable service to a set of St. Louis(?)K-12 schools. <br />
<br />
When asked about the biggest impediments their answers were consistent about what could be done to encourage buildout:<br />
a) less regulation and fewer requirements;<br />
b) more exchange of information within the state; and<br />
c) last mile issues.<br />
<br />
LEB<br />
<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Mark Redding===<br />
<br />
Mark is the Executive Deputy Secretary of State and used to work in the state budget office at the time of MOREnet's creation<br />
<br />
Exec Summary<br />
<br />
*There are many champions within MO that made this happen (not just one)<br />
*Collaboration between various state agencies (in MO case Higher Ed, Library, K12, Budget Office and Governor’s Office) is very important in his mind for success<br />
*One thing we haven’t talked about before is collaborating with the state budget office. Had Mark not intervened in 2002, K12 may have pulled out of MORENET, which would have pulled some funding.<br />
<br />
Mark worked for the state budget office from 1993-2003. While there, he saw a need to bring information technology to state government as a way of reducing costs (to which he encountered reisistance from the state data processing people. Basically, Mark is a budge analyst at heart and enjoys figuring out how to pay for things and the politics involved to ensure that the money makes it through to the legislators.<br />
<br />
Here is Mark’s take on the creation and continuation of MORENET<br />
*A group of individuals got together to discuss how to get Missouri connected<br />
**Bill Mitchell from the Higher Ed Community<br />
**Elden Wallace (also of higher ed community, but used to work at state governor’s office<br />
**Mike Hartsmann from the Governor’s Office<br />
**State Librarian (Anne ?) (<br />
***Additional note Mark is married to one of the employees of the state library<br />
**Mark (at the state budget office)<br />
*They wanted to figure out how to connect the higher ed, K12 and libraries using a common network platform<br />
*The group worked collaboratively to establish MORENET and ensure that MORENET continued to exist<br />
**Received some seed money from State Budget’s office<br />
**Approrpriation originally appeared in 3 separate budget requests<br />
***Office of administration (for libs) and then was transferred to state library<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
**During 2002 budget crunch, K12 was looking to cut funding to MORENET<br />
***But Mark (working as the de facto budget director for the state) removed appropriation from K12 budget and placed it into the higher ed approps (which would prevent Ed. Dept. from slashing funding <br />
**Presently, MORENET is funded by 2 appropriations<br />
***One to state library for last mile to libs and databases<br />
***One to higher ed to pay for backbone and last mile to k12 and higher ed<br />
**The group collaborated to make educational/maketing literature and to determine bandwidth requirements for entities (we’l<br />
*Thinks MORENET helped spur broadband deployment (eg. Anchor/tenant)<br />
*Upcoming<br />
*Barriers @ formation<br />
**Not many; they made their communication to leg. clear as to their intents and the group seemed to be good @ policticing<br />
*MORENET was created during a time of fiscal health, so lots money was available, they had the right group at the right time<br />
*Future Barriers<br />
**Republican leg and governor who don’t see MORENET as essential and would like to cut funding<br />
**Indirectly, the term limits affect their ability to inform legislatures on the importance of MORENET<br />
**Attempt to fold MORENET into something it’s not e.g. connecting additional state agencies or foregoing MORENET in favor of complete state-wide network w/ all gov’t agencies on it <br />
<br />
Here are his suggestions for B&amp;MG Foundation<br />
*Would like to see help to rural libraries to get connected to MORENET<br />
*In other states, he would recommend encouraging collaboration between libaries and other stakeholders within a state to form an action plan @ the state level to help entities get connected<br />
<br />
===MOREnet Staff===<br />
Several people attended this session including:<br />
<br />
*Bandwidth<br />
**Drew a graph to illustrate bandwidth<br />
***Started out low and remained flat from 1986-1990<br />
***In 1990, with the advent of Gopher and the opening of NSFnet to more than the large research Universities, MOREnet noticed a large spike in bandwidth and was brought down for <br />
***Bandwidth increased steadily from 1990-1994<br />
***In 19994, there was another spike in bandwidth utilization (due to the advent of Mosaic)<br />
***Steeper increase from 1994-late nineties, when it spiked again and in continues to increase at a faster rate then previous<br />
***Hitting a wall now because of video, audio and social networking sites<br />
**Has bandwidth monitoring software to monitor bandwidth utilization<br />
***Uses this to forecast future demand. This forecasting is not so much an exact science as empirically based<br />
***Has to time bandwidth increases to (so is important to forecast):<br />
****E-Rate<br />
****University Procurement Procedures<br />
****Termination penalties (e.g. has to sign contract to use circuit for x years, with penalty for early termination)<br />
****Vendor build-out<br />
**Overbuilds capacity in order to facilitate future expansion of bandwidth needs<br />
*Funding<br />
**MOREnet charges a flat rate for all libraries to be a member<br />
**This rate is used to aggregate demand and take care of ‘accidents of geography’<br />
***Does not matter if they are near an urban environment or rural (low v. high cost, relatively)<br />
**Does not charge based upon bandwidth allocation (one exception mentioned in E-Rate)<br />
**Allows for equitable access to all libraries<br />
*Technology and Biddings<br />
**Picture of backbone can be found on the web<br />
**Hit brick wall when wanted T1s to all facilities in 1998<br />
**Became anchor-tenant whereby SBC had to build out the capacity, which allowed other entities to connect<br />
**Approaching that wall in current situation—Fiber is needed but not built out across the state<br />
**Getting to the point where they outstrip the providers<br />
**Used to be able to solicit one bid to get everyone connected, but now is getting to the point where bandwidth for each entity is customized, which requires a separate RFP to build<br />
**Finds this inefficient and is looking to get FTTP in order to be able to dial up the speed at no extra marginal cost<br />
**Backbone currently operated by Show-me (a consortia of Missouri Electric companies) and Light Corp (affiliated with Century Tel)—currently runs @ 1 Gb, but expects to have 2 Gb soon<br />
**Has implementation of QoS on backbone<br />
***Allows institutions to control which packets have priority<br />
***Video and MOBIUS (statewide ILS used by Universities and a few other libraries<br />
**Has a Network Operations Center (NOC) to determine in real time bandwidth allocation and ensure there is a big enough pipe out to the Internet (ensures that the traffic on the backbone-traffic available to get out on Internet<br />
**Connects institutions via Frame Relay and T1s all the way to the backbone via one of the nodes.<br />
**Uses Ethernet to traverse the backbone<br />
**3/4 of the budget goes to AT&amp;T and other Telcos to pay for the last mile to the institutions<br />
**Issued an RFP to build a new backbone on the day we visited<br />
***Permanently lease 2 strands of fiber for 20 years (owned by Missouri State University) and managed by MOREnet<br />
****Expects bidders to be Level 3 and Show-Me (not traditional telcos)<br />
***Will not be able to use E-Rate to pay for backbone because the backbone will be owned by MOREnet and not run by a ‘Qualifying ISP’ as required by E-Rate rules<br />
***New backbone will have 2 strands, each going at 10 Gbps, with the possibility of expanding capacity by upgrading electronics---not having to buy new capacity (a large cost savings)<br />
***Nodes will be in Kansas City, Columbia, St. Louis, Jefferson City and Springfield<br />
***Connection to Commodity Internet and I2 out of St Louis and Kansas City<br />
***Seeking to peer network with neighboring states to ensure passage of packets for no charge<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**Collaboration<br />
***Thinks building infrastructure alone is inefficient<br />
***One point of contact for helpdesk for schools, libraries and university<br />
***Librarians to assist librarians (they have a librarian on staff to help communicate with librarians)<br />
***MOREnet helps foster collaborations between libraries K12, Higher Ed and Libraries<br />
**Independent business reportable to members<br />
**Internally<br />
***Run to maximize profit <br />
***Not good to keep secrets and ensure transparency<br />
***Auditable @ state and federal level<br />
**Working with great people that are great so they don’t have to work for money because they enjoy services supplied by MOREnet<br />
**Employees<br />
***MOREnet has 105-110 employees<br />
***A majority work in support, training and customer service work<br />
***Believes that it is not about the wires &amp; boxes<br />
**Good idea to partner with state CIO<br />
**Funding model<br />
***Aggregate demand to leverage buying power of combined demand<br />
***Leverage E-Rate<br />
***Allows for quality service<br />
**Conferences<br />
***Holds its own conferences and training sessions<br />
***Also attends Missouri Library Association to open up communication<br />
**Maximize usage of Funding sources (Gates, LSTA and appropriation)<br />
**Help to train the human capital (combining technical training with Human training)<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Senate bill requiring network mergers<br />
**E-Rate<br />
***Allows institutions to buy service elsewhere for cheaper than the MOREnet membership fee<br />
****Institutions don’t see value in tech support and databases<br />
****Or value in centralized services for less overhead<br />
****Only sees MOREnet as pipe, but it is more<br />
***Complexity<br />
**Facilitating fiber deployment to hinterlands<br />
***Maxed out T1 in 4 years; T3 in 1; <br />
***Needs a new model to pay for bandwidth (thinks fiber is the key because there is no marginal cost in turning up the speed on the connection; only in getting the packet on the Internet)<br />
*Misc<br />
**Staff Development<br />
***Believes that despite funding shortage, staff development is a key investment to make<br />
***Thinks that it is important to mentor the next generation of leaders to run state network<br />
***Fosters an environment of collaboration, technology and outreach to the MOREnet community using non-technical terms<br />
***Works with younger staff to ensure there is a shared vision for the next generation of MOREnet<br />
<br />
===State CIO OFfice===<br />
Dan Taylor, CIO of the state of Missouri and Pete Wieberg the Telecom. Director.<br />
<br />
*By order of the governor all of the state agencies IT functions are being centralized under the office of the state CIO<br />
*Both interviewees looked at MORENET as a partner<br />
**Interesting note: MORENET is the ISP for the state government offices in Jefferson City, as it provides the least expensive option<br />
*Interviewees work with state agencies to increase bandwidth to Government and health care<br />
*To provide this connectivity, they are creating the next generation Network<br />
**The network is designed to connect government agencies, public safety and for telemedicine<br />
**The backbone of the network will consist of fiber owned by the MO Dept. of Transportation<br />
**Fiber gifted to Dept. of Trans from Show-ME (a Missouri Electric company consortium) in exchange for the rights of way along the freeway<br />
***Fiber is owned by the Dept of Trans, but prokered by the State IT office<br />
***Fiber can only be used for governmental, non-commercial purposes<br />
**Designed to run in parallel to MOREnet <br />
***MOREnet, according to them is more than just a state network <br />
***They did do not want to test in court if using the fiber to connect library and schools is a governmental, non-commercial purpose<br />
**NGN is designed to be a private public partnership (e.g. state owns backbone but private sector provides last mile)<br />
*Barriers to entry for Broadband<br />
**There are over 40 telecom companies<br />
**No coordination at the state libraries<br />
***Thinks the state needs to do more<br />
***No broadband deployment plans or authority<br />
**Power company is laying fiber along the power lines<br />
***Creates an is sue of regulated (telecos) and un-regualated (power) entities providing broadband<br />
*How best to connect?<br />
**Consolidate Demand<br />
***Thinks it is best for institutions and companies to have one revenue stream to connect multiple entities instead of one revenue one connection<br />
**Invest in the community to deploy the network<br />
*Off the record: Thinks that owning the fiber for the backbone helps place the state in a better negotiating position w/ AT&amp;T<br />
*Funding opps for B&amp;MG<br />
**Important to frame in terms of economic development<br />
**Believes that libraries in communities is a trusted entity that is highly respected and valued<br />
**Best to promote a national agenda<br />
**Make solutions as cost effective as possible<br />
**Would like a review of telephone and broadband deployment<br />
<br />
===Rebecca Miller===<br />
<br />
Rebecca is the E-Rate coordinator who works at MOREnet<br />
<br />
*Does E-Rate Internet connectivity in aggregate for all MOREnet members, including both schools &amp; libraries<br />
*E-Rate is not used to cover MOREnet membership fee, which libraries are required to still pay. Rather, it is used to keep their membership fee low <br />
*Each libarary is required to file a letter of agency to MOREnet and other forms certifying they have filters<br />
*Technology Plan is filed with the State Library, who reviews and retains them<br />
*MOREnet receives the money and it is part of their budget<br />
*For Schools and libraries, they received $5-6 Million for 737 connecting institutions (6% of the annual operating expenses of MOREnet)<br />
*CIPA<br />
**All but 3 library systems in the state are CIPA compliant<br />
**MOREnet has a network filter or it can be applied at local level<br />
**Libraries that are not CIPA-compliant are charged an additional fee per T1 connection ($1300 in current year) to cover for lost revenue due to not <br />
*Libraries are encouraged to apply for POTS and cell phone E-Rate discount on their own.<br />
*Rebecca provides training on how to file E-Rate paperwork (both for the paperwork required for MOREnet and POTS)<br />
**Morning is training<br />
**Afternoon is filling out the form<br />
*Notes difficulty in getting paperwork in on time by the filing date, and casually reminds libraries that they will be charged per T1 if they do not file on time<br />
<br />
==Follow ups==</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Visit_Data&diff=2574Ohio State Visit Data2007-04-02T18:07:17Z<p>Mbard: /* Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
===The History of OIPLIN===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Roger Verney, State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Steve Wood, Cleveland Heights Public Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tony Yankus, currently in State IT office, formerly at OPLIN and State Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OHIOLink formed in mid-80s.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities went to Board of Regents to get new libraries and the Bd of Regents said, no more buildings, share resources instead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
So OhioLink was formed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tom Sanville, head of OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom takes marching orders from academic community. The Academic community is moving closer to public libraries. Some public libraries on OhioLink now. But in the beginning, OhioLink did not want public libraries involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Concept of public libraries piggybacking on OhioLink. Tom said no, not interested. Didn’t need public libraries. One of the criteria for participating in OhioLink was that you had to have Innovative Interfaces Inc. (III). Public libraries were not interested in III. Big metro libraries were on DRA and didn’t want to change to III. Cincinnati and Columbus had homegrown systems. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg Byerly at Kent. Helped to put together OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Don Tolliver from Kent and someone else from Higher Ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greg was hired to create OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Byerly was hired to put together OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also hired to put together InfoOhio. InfoOhio didn’t have money and was a poor stepchild.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council, Fran Haley was the new person at OLC. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Fran was the big leader, combined with Greg Byerly. Greg had the ideas and Fran made it happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dick Cheski was very weak and not much liked. Tony was director of library development at the State Library. Roger came to State Library from Higher Ed. Steve Wood was Director of Cleveland Heights.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran picked carefully people that she wanted to be involved as Co-chairs. Then she invited the entire library community to participate. If you are interested, come to the meetings. Whole library community knew what was happening. Democracy in action. Not done behind closed doors. Tried to involve trustees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Produced the proposal (OPLIN, 1994. Byerly wrote most of it. Got $50,000 from legislature to fund meetings. Dave Miller, on OLC board, got Randy Gardner, a state legislator who became the champion for the project financially. &lt;em&gt;(See Dave Miller’s version of this.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Had great idea in proposal, now how do we get the money? Library community grass roots effort. Greg Browning, head of Budget and Management Office. Got $5 million over two years to start it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Couldn’t happen now. No leadership or money to do it. A lot more money was available. State was rolling in money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
People, need, and money all came together in 1995, July 1. Browning just put the money in the budget and it was funded. Librarians didn’t have to lobby much.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tony was the first Director of OPLIN. March 15, 1996, unveiled first OPLIN web site, gave everybody a T1. Mission: Equity of Access to Information.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In some small libraries, OPLIN pipe was the biggest pipe coming into the area.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
249 out of 250 libraries joined immediately. (Or at least verr soon).&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A lot of talks, dog and pony shows to show what was possible. Had several “summits” to demonstrate. Programs at the association meeting in the fall of 95. Did show and tell of what it might look like. Statewide video conference at 8 sites on Ground Hog Day in 96. Reached 500 staff members that day. Nothing to show on the internet. No WWW yet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Said you can run your automation system on it. Issue in national library community was to get libraries connected to the Internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Under Tony three major things:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• telecommunication connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• access to the internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• a suite of databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Discover Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OH Kids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o What tree is this?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ohio women&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Had the content created for them by others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Major reasons for OPLIN was to provide government information but there was little online information from the government to provide.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget grew to buy PCs for the local libraries. 3 PCs for every library. At least some had to be available for the public. This came from Randy Gardner. $5 million for connectivity and $8 million for PCs and other services such as routers.. This was a one-time deal. Since then, OPLIN has received minimal increase. E-rate has been a big help. Still about $5 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cheski, then State Librarian, tried to get control over OPLIN. Didn’t succeed and quit.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Administrative overhead for OPLIN had to be limited to 3%. Good OPLIN Board. Had a great political sense and management know how. Knew constitueces. Great leadership in John Wallach. Great Executive Committee, solved problems and kept moving.<br />
Tony would come up with ideas and budget proposals, talk about them and the Board supported most of them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Amount Tony accomplished with state contracts for telecom and databases was incredible. Group of children’s librarians. Told them to come up with ideas and they did: Ohio Kids.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meribeth Mansfield wrote an article for LJ. Future of public libraries. Summer of 1997.<br />
Got a lot of attention.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
No time to publicize all the great things they were doing. Did have a big kick-off with Governor present.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN has been independent. Board reported to no one. Mike Lucas, State Librarian after Cheski, donated time of fiscal budget staff to help out. State Library still supports OPLIN in this way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;What made it successful? What factors?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Timing (lots of money available)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Leadership (Fran Haley and Greg Byerly and Tony Yankus)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lot of people got enthusiastic about the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians understood the value of the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lots of libraries already automated.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Grass roots support.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Inclusivity of librarians. Asked local librarians to participate in planning.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Broke down barriers between organizations – Fran was a great communicator&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Dedicated the network library by library with cake, coffee, state representative and senator, mayor. Lots of photo ops and positive publicity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran coordinated this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PR packet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioNet did the training of all the librarians to do everything. This is how you turn on the pc, reboot a router, search a database. How to access the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran had a history of lobbying legislature very successfully. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran was a catalyst to bring people together and coordinate who should talk to whom.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Agreement in library community and good lobbying. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Library Council coordinated the message for the legislature so everybody said the same thing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;How would you start now in a state?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to take the leadership role.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to have the attention of someone in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is the right thing to do and we are going to do it now!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Effective lobbying technique&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Open communication between the legislature and the library community&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Libraries Connect Ohio&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Includes State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Info Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talking about databases, virtual reference, resource sharing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summit on May 21st.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Three library communities are talking more than the past but still better than in the past.<br />
Some of the barriers between public and academic libraries are coming down. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Budget History&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Submitted budget request for 1996-97, OPLIN was included in budget request, $4.8 million over 2 years. General revenue funds. $8 million to buy 3 computers for every public library in Ohio and also one time costs for telecom like routers. Gave money to OPLIN and said could use over 2 years. Software, training also included.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Regional library systems in Ohio, 7 of them. OPLIN used some of these systems for training. Paid systems to do this. One system served as the help desk.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Goal to have every library connected with routers and computers for the public and databases for the public. Two staff to begin with, Tony and an office manager.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Operating costs never grew much. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Now only $4.3 million out of general revenue.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$3 million in spending authority includes erate, database fees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget switched over the years away from the state library and then back to it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In State Library budget then moved to State Aid.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This protected it from budget cuts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2005, was $4.7 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cuts brought it down to $4.3 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2000-01 got $100,000 for filtering. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2006-07 got another $100,000 for each of two years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2002-03 requested OPLIN out of general funds and database resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Funding changes every year. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
MORE – Moving Ohio Resources Everywhere&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Managed by the state library. Public and school libraries participate. Share resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
E-rate has been sporadic over the years. Began to get in 2000. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Difficult to plan. Get some years and not in others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Local libraries lobby first for State Aid. Maybe lobby for OPLIN and maybe not.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Now have seven staff. Worked with OARnet at the beginning and now have an OPLIN support center. Staffing not likely to increase or decrease dramatically. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 1===<br />
====Includes librarians and OCCN and Netmedicine====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library currently the backbone but not sure what this means due to changes. Two hundred and fifty one libraries in state generally speaking all to back to Columbus.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cleveland Heights has 3 T1 connections to the branches. They connect with fiber thru local cable company. All city offices, schools and libraries to central cable head-in branch. They are a part of CLVNET which is a backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library connects straight to backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NEO-RLS (regional cooperative) has 400 potential libraries with 92 public libraries. The main traffic filter and management run thru the library system with 1 T1 from OPLIN and 1 cable line. OPLIN &gt;nearest HUB&gt;400 libraries. Use Time Warner high speed for overflow which is bigger than T1.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN provides connection to library together thru consortiums CLVENET and SEO. SEO consortium is now statewide with 75 libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NetWellness – goes thru university network to Cincinnati hub. Use Internet 2 and state backbone. Website available on Internet 2 and commodity network. No security locks, all information available for everyone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Schools use E-Rate with one school access, some are using 3rd Frontier it just depends on where the school is located. If there is a housing authority then they use cable and/or DSL. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Multi layers of library organizations in Ohio are:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN – created for basic needs but not enough pipes for all services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
INFO Ohio – are the schools network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OHIOnet – academic libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The NEO-RLS works totally with OPLIN on all technical issues but this varies per regional which there are 4 Regionals that serve Ohio. NEO-RLS along with OPLIN takes care of all needs of the users that are paying fees. This is supported thru state and local funds. All libraries are a member of the regional but if they don’t pay fees then they are not provided services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The costs for connections:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
ClevNet - $6,000 per month to OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OCCN – 271 million for schools for full T1 access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NetWellness – uses university network and all costs paid by network, does not know costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library – on backbone and pays the same as ClevNet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN is moving to provide fiber to all users. ClevNet also uses a DS3 which OPLIN pays for.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Shared automation systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Clevenet – 31 libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o SEO – 70 libraries, all small&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public access to the network, social networking. Public access is highest users and internet is highest reason for usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Utube&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o MySpace&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ebay &lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable audio books and video&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Netwellness – health media&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Distance learning. Ohio learning network. Using podcasts, downloadable text 500 courses. Student remote access to do homework.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pent up demand will explode&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How get people in rural areas more BB connectivity and people in urban areas $$ to get BB in the home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 21st century grants keep school libraries open after school but not enough of them. Demand still falls on public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Network open 24 hours a day but the highest use is in the afternoon. Lots of available bandwidth in the middle of the night.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Terminals busy constantly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Time limit on use of computers but this contradicts use for distance learning that might require longer to take a course.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some segregation of use to protect catalog access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – parking lot users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• T-1s segregated wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Come to library to get high speed even if they have a computer at home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Know It Now – virtual reference&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Webinars, WebJunction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Meetings online – interactive video networking for training and meetings. Desk top delivery.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Mind set change – not to use new technology&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Online coursework – distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Lack of bandwidth is holding back technology.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digitization of books/other media, archives, photos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Genealogy resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University of Phoenix model – interactive, virtual schools, distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP – Management of system&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More computer stations for internet access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If citywide BB access to home, library resources would be more available. Some cities are adding citywide wireless access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Would it be more cost effective if all on same BIG pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Video delivery usage is increasing need to be at the get on the band wagon with this service. Would like to see video download available to patron. If the network availability cannot be obtained thru us than they will go around us.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• No one has sufficient bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They limit use of patrons&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers they put out&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to limit in PM when use is highest so makes problem worse&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit types of activities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Timing of training, can’t do in the afternoon&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Demand on system grows and cannot use – slow email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Different size of pipes – get rid of bottlenecks. Only as good as smallest pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works in OPLIN cloud but expensive to cross networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Hard to predict future use, explosive growth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN is trying to replace copper with fiber up to 10 megs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Want scalable fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Look at use growth in past. Increase in order of magnitude. Look at other industries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Will state lines reach a bottleneck nationally or internationally&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber.. Put 10 megs everywhere.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Find weak points – bottleneck and replace with fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Take advantage of research&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Policy makers and industry keep a lid on development to make money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Next generation is fiber and wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Create a think tank on library issues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Watch trends and try to predict&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Possible to replace 3 T1’s with 10 mg of fiber line which should last for awhile but may not last as long as estimated but a second fiber line can be added without additional installation charges which will be the best long term benefit.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Still need to look at the last 5 years and how there has been a double or triple increase in technologic advances and usage and then figure this will continue so as trends keep increase we should plan to expand broadband capabilities as much as possible. Currently OPLIN is watching the trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“It may be good idea to just install 10mg of fiber everywhere. The weak points of fiber need to be found and eliminated, for example the fiber line going into the house is replaced with cooper and this will slowdown processing. “&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“There is a third wire in most house wiring which could be used with phone lines.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Believe that people are doing research (MIT) but not sharing research on information trends with the public. There is a need to check with MIT and other research labs for projects in development. Third frontier needs to have a liaison from the library field to keep abreast of trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Libraries should be brought to the front of the line with think tanks and research on future projects. The fourth element in research and trends is the right time.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Ubiquitous BB throughout state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digital divide – easy convenient, cheap, access to BB &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Same as telephone and TV&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adequate training in use for everybody&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Computer and TV on same box. If cable, can computer connect?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How leverage to get greater access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People read and learn more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Increased information literacy skills&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If get stuck on google, ask “Do you want help from a librarian” – connect directly to librarian who can see what already looked at&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google direct to DB search&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google and libraries get together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Equity of access to next generation network services to information age communities to enable education and economic development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• $$, individual, local libraries, states, get rid of concept to “do more with less”. Need to make the case that high speed connectivity is a good thing to have, need to pay for it. Ohio’s new government “gets it”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership – political. Need to capture $$ for the right project. Higher priority on political agenda. The new Ohio governor seems interested in Broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Elitist mind set that not everybody needs high speed connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T, monoploly without any government control. 2/3 of OPLIN comes through the private sector; 1/3 through higher ed network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership in the private sector&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Turfism – 3 networks, benefit to get together but they don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Librarians don’t want to change&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN applies for its connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Individual libraries apply for POTS and any additional connectivity beyond &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State gets $70 million from e-rate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Don’t like erate because&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Perception that paperwork is onerous (but it really isn’t)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Eligibility changes every year&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Needs to be simplified&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o CIPA – Library by library, funding through OPLIN, $100,000 in state funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Actually, once you learn how to fill out the forms, it’s not that bad.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN – Helps with LAN as well as WAN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Regional libraries – respond to technical problems, try and analyze where the problem is&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Own staff in medium to large public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Research think tank to help libraries plan for the future&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocacy – people listen to the Gates name&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• States that don’t have much connectivity get $$ to help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Get states to work together. There is currently little communication between states&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocate with Governors’ about BB policy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Establish a national grant program for libraries to apply to do innovative projects&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ T-1 is laughable., Need a formula based on need and use.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide an equal big pipe to all based on high use. “Internet use is a self fulfilling prophesy.” All libraries will fill a bib pipe. Need video to desktop.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Long term effort to track over time. Need a tool for evaluation need and planning.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Need to look at how they big/whole picture is changing over time and provide national leadership.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 2===<br />
====All Librarians====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• All in OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Central Library Consortium, connect directly to CLC then CLC’s connects to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Road Runner through Time Warner Cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o ILS has 1 T1 through OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Internet through Cable, not sure of speed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Columbus&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Now&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 2-3 T1s to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg to library data center&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg from OPLIN to Internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 50 meg to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 100 meg to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Cheaper using fiber for new network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New configuration could be a big bottleneck&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Worthington, 10 meg to OPLIN for each branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2 T-1 to Columbus for ILS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 ptp between branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Redundancy over OPLIN lines&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Delaware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 franctionalized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ to main&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ¼ to each of the brances&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to big branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to main with franction to small branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated wirelnees from Time Warner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OPLIN lines paid directly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Extra telecom lines from libraries budget&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Erate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Scalable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Yes, ask OPLIN who askes State IT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Do a load survey to see&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State IT notifies if there’s a problem&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ethernet in Worthington&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN negotiated the contract&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T paid to bring the line across public road&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library paid from road to library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Everybody trying to move to fiber because T-1s are too expensive&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• ILS – 70% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public internet – 80% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – one libraries shuts it off at night so public can’t use from parking lot BUT extending to nearby parks during the day&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff resources to central databases, 15% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Large emails – remote from home for public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote access in general&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High definition resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Audio and visual downloads&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• &lt;strong&gt;People come to the library to learn how to do this and then go home and do it but while they are learning they do it at the library&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• E-book download&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Basic tech training for users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Productivity suites&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Download more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Music&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Videos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP in more rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More digital collections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Interavtive web site with a community bulletin board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More workstations&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Web casts – story times&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Voicera – Star trek communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patron generated ILL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote connectivity – can’t get into library catalog&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow and dropped access to web&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff access to resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Segregate lines ½ staff and 2/3 public&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee only for phones&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gurantee ILS over everything else&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vacera – badge communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Inconsistency in vendor market – service is bad – can’t keep track of IP addresses, slow response&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Price, what can you afford. Compare price and found 50 megs was only a little more than 10 megs in cost.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• What’s available in the community? Industry availability in rural area, Most users to not have BB access. Build a highway in community and supposed to be stringing fiber with it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Monitor bandwidth to determine use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tech plans every 3 years so plan then for new technology and branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trend analysis&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract for shorter terms with clauses for scalability at a certain price&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ILS talk to each other and patron generated ILL, enough bandwidth for this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How much? - depends on the library and &lt;strong&gt;how long the community stays rural&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• As much bandwidth for staff and public to do what they want and need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library service 24-7&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library set the standards for public internet access (restaurants, etc. have to live up to library reputation)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Proactive with new technology and new content – movies, games, without worrying about bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocating for industry standards so don’t have to teach different technologies to public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Work with feds to discover resources – e government&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $$ State funding has been static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Local competition with police and fire for $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Geography&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vendor choice – lack of competition&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Infrastructure plan&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State and local orgs, companies don’t talk about their plans. Law if unintended consequences. Need more coordination&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o No collaboration in place to make decisions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Need to communicate about their plans&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lack of cooperation in planning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Local staffing and technology expertise&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Voting public doesn’t understand new role of libraries Need for technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Technical expertise for configuration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Understanding of the public about the role of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• CIPA – all filter but one&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filter at different levels controlled by parental approval and bar code&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Apply?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o POTS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Telecom if not by OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Problems?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Forms “Biggest bureaucracy in the whole world”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2-3 months full time for staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Difficult to contract in their time frame&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Rules and regulations keep changing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vendor doesn’t send the $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Long drawn out process&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BUT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Worth a lot of money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Own staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Paid consultant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN and OPLINTech list serv&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trade and professional literature, share information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract with regional cooperatives&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• WebJunction and other online resurces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State direct for sudden and drastic problems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Make a deal with industry to offer long term service at good rates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pressure on Hollywood etc to offer more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Alternate sources of bandwidth such as over electric lines. Plug into electric outlet to get bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide line directly in certain rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test MS products first. Get systems stable and backward compliant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test software –special grants to make sure new computers can run new software&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Value of OPLIN? What makes it a success?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Stable and funded&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Listens to individual libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adds to services and improves services, not static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances needs of large metro and small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances politics&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works with OLC (professional public library association) to get needs to General Assembly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works closely with state network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Communicates well and facilitates communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Brought email to libraries in the state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lot of networks –have trouble working together. Afraid there is duplication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Maintain identify and communicate well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works well with state library to do training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Ohio is a library rich state and a lot of library organizations are looking at their missions and how to improve services. All libraries and library organizations are having trouble trying not to duplicate efforts and working together. Adding to this is the fact that libraries are not expecting each organization to do specific or certain things for them.<br />
Many libraries are having trouble maintaining their identify and communicating well and are pulled in too many different directions”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Greg Byerly===<br />
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;See also interviews with OPLIN pioneers and Dave Miller&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
How it all started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Article in library hi tech in 1996. Vol 14, issues 2-3, 1996.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Similar document for OhioLink and InfoLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
All three networks started with OCLC. OCLC was to do two things, mechanize production of catalog cards and a realtime circ system for Ohio universities. State of Ohio gave money to start.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
1988, Bd of Regents looking at requests to build buildings. Regents said no more money to build more libraries because everything would be electronic. So university libraries upset so came up with regional storage facilities in 1986. Asked for money for storage facilities. Asked for money for a network to have an online integrated circulation system for all universities $2.1 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Grey was at Kent state and started NOTICE. Dean of libraries at Kent and Ohio State were on the commission to start OhioLink. Greg kept giving ideas and he got invited to go to a meeting with the regents. Wanted OhioLink in 9-12 months. Greg asked to start it up in two years. Loaned from Kent State to OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Organized process to get everyone involved. 16 universities plus 2 private universities. Key getting 3 people from every university on a task force or committee. Huge RFP with vendors demonstrating what they could do.. 150 people at vendor presentations. Got all these people to participate. Miracles don’t happen if try and do quickly. Need to take time to get people to agree. Need smaller universities and large university to get on the same system. Originally 18 libraries had 13 different systems. Get everybody involved so that when a decision had to be made, they were all in agreement. Joined III. First big customer of III.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio in 1987-88 had gotten its first supercomputer. Telecom networks between all universities. Original OhioLink Board had two people, one from OARnet and one from state IT. Everybody wins if everybody gets bigger computers. Everything came together at the right time. System became the backbone of the internet. It became technologically possible to link everybody together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Public libraries didn’t have a clue. Bd. of Regents was afraid that the public libraries would steal their thunder and do something. Greg had loyalties to both public and academic. Told public libraries and they didn’t seem to care. 1985 was when they got a lot of money in change of state aid. Big tension between 7 major metros and rural. Everyone was trying to stake their claim. Public libraries were happy because they had a lot of money. In 1991 didn’t see a need to combine resource into a network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
InforOhio – In 1989, even before III contract. School libraries in NE Ohio wanted to start an OhioLink for the schools. Greg felt schools couldn’t do it because too many and not connected. BUT…&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Educational Computer Network. Already linked all the schools over a separate state network. Had nothing to do with libraries. Allowed communication over state lines but only to the schools. Public libraries and academic libraries received big infusions of money from the state level to do this. Schools have never had this infusion of money. InfoOhio had its first libraries online in 1991. Greg did a bid process for school libraries. 23 regional computer sites. Schools connect to one of the regional sites and then to OECN and to each other. Now called ITCs or Instructional Technology Center. These are run locally with a board of local superintendents. Buy software programs for school lunch, bus schedules. School libraries also connected. About half of the Superintendents or on the Board. Some of the ITCs get cheaper rates for databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran Haley came to Ohio to head OLC. 1994 called Greg. Knew about OhioLink. Asked why there is no OhioLink for public libraries. Fran and OLC hired Greg in 1994 to develop the 1994 plan. That paper asked for 5 million dollars over two years to get this done. Governor gave them 4.6million. Announced in state of the budget. Legislators called and asked, if you get an extra $8 million can you do it all? They said yes. This was the beginning of funding for OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg said had to get on state network. Fran said, why aren’t they? Greg said, they had never asked. Asked to get on and did. Had to get in early so considered as the network expanded. Met with Tim Steiner and other in state network. If had money behind it, then his duty as a state network to serve public libraries. He does lottery, highway patrol, everything expanding rapidly. Public libraries were the slowest to get involved. By waiting it became more possible for disparate for libraries to talk to each other. OhioLink everybody had to be on the same system. By the time public libraries joined, that was no longer necessary.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Over 2400 school libraries all use Sirsi/Dynix. InfoOhio is Sirsi/Dynix largest customer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom Sanville, director of OhioLink. One of the fiercest persons to get statewide contracts for databases. First was Proquest in 1996.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Libraries Connect has the State Library, OPLIN, OhioLink, and InfoOhio working together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN got EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
InfoOhio got small subset of Proquest.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Finally got together to do one state wide bid for general publications which was EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cooperate for database contracts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Make a lot of sense in theory to be one network but where they have to work together they work together very well. Mike Lucas called these meetings for them to meet and talk about common issues.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg lobbied for Lib Connect Plus. Several times a year this group expands to include the 3 professional associations and library school.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
SchoolRoom – online portal for elementary schools. Federated search. Looks at school libs, public libs, databases, and best websites chosen by teachers, and google sites.<br />
Sirsi-Dynis. Rooms. Have room for different searches.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Feels 3 networks work. Libraries Connect does what’s necessary for cooperation. Each network has its own funding stream. Each runs on its own subset of state system. Academic use I2.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN established by OLC. State Library was not at all interested in OPLIN. Participated in OhioLInk so didn’t care. High contention between Cheski and OPLIN. Day OPLIN got funded, Cheski retired. Set OPLIN separate so was not part of State Library. Now?? State Library tried once to get OPLIN. No reason OPLIN couldn’t function with state library. But why rock the boat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN works best on state network. Push state to get better rates. With a new governor who is doing Broadband Initiative. Cooperation is good. Don’t think can get a better contract that state can.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Success factors:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Participation getting everyone involved, no surprises, here is what we are planning, get involved&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Well connected, respected leaders in an advisory council&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two trustees, library directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Working librarians who actually know and do something&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Task force on administration, money, procedures, policies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two people from board as chairs and task forces do work&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Committees under task forces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Get directors to let staff come&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Had regional meetings. Handed out draft of document. Get seven metro libraries to buy in. Cleveland send top tech people to serve so other big metros asked to have their people on it as well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Organization that goes behind it led by someone neutral – Greg and Fran&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Someone that goes to all the meetings and takes notes and puts it all together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC paid them a little money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vision to do this and ignoring any perceived barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Blasted through barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Acknowledge barriers and then overcome them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Could be done now. Public librarians are bummed because not getting an increase.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State Libraries efforts to do resource sharing. MORE – Moving Online Resources Everywhere. LSTA gave 11 million to schools to automate school libraries. Maybe state library should now spend money another way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Replicate in other states what has happened in Ohio and Missouri&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Send people to meetings&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Neutral people&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Frustration with Gates.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Spends money on Smaller Learning Communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Divide big school into small school&lt;br/&gt;<br />
These people know nothing about school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates doesn’t see value of school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Dave Miller===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Chairman of the...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Dave came in after the librarians got the ball rolling.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg Byerly really got it started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council (OLC) got behind the idea and it became a reality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was president of OLC. Not involved in working with Greg. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was in Columbus for something else. Got a call from OLC asking if he would call state representative to lobby for more funding from general assembly for operational spending for public libraries. Went to a pay phone to call the state representative sponsoring the bill.. His was the 8th call for same thing. Many librarians had already called. Randy Gardner is now a state senator. He said he agreed but was cutting funding percentage. It was a good year for one time funding. Governor had already put in a budget request for 4.5 million for OPLIN but would not bring it inside libraries. Most of big libraries has the money to bring it inside. Many of the small ones could not afford it. Standing in a wet phone booth, Miller asked for state to provide the money to bring OPLIN inside the library and internet work stations for the public. How much?<br />
Dave came up with $5 million. 250 library districts at the time times about $10,000 per library. Passed the house. Senate approved $10 million. Settled on $ 8 million.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Helped to get all the libraries involved. Also gave Tony Yankus the resources to pay for training services for the library. In Governor’s 4.5 million didn’t provide for any training. Bought computers, routhers, training, databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Miller is now chair of state library board. He moved to that after he was chair of OLC Board.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
His role with OPLIN now is to support the use of LSTA funds to supplement databases. <br />
They will have a retreat next week. Get newsbank. OPLIN, Ohio-Link, and Info Ohio work together to get databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The State Library approves OPLIN board member but based on their recommendations. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Come close to bringing OPLIN into the state library. For various reasons their board said no. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Advantage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Line item under state library budget but not part of state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Provide services for them&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HR services&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Bookkeeping, Diane Fink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Monitors their books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Technical report due and state library IT people do the report&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General assembly approves OPLIN budget through state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Protection not as strong&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Disadvantages&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN doesn’t have 100% trust in state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library Bd blocked two OPLIN Board members to be OPLIN Directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When OPLIN got funded, Dick wanted it to be part of the state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Factors that lead to success&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tony Yankus was the right person for the job&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Tony and Grey Byerly can see things others can’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vision of how it can all come together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Laid firm foundation then the challenge was gone for Tony&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC coming into its own. Created OLC from OLA and OLTA.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Academics pulled out into their own organization and formed OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Had the right energy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Did some things the state library might do but didn’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o &lt;strong&gt;If OLC said something was good, they would believe it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Flip flop between prof and trustee as president of OLC (used to 10 years ago, still?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Very active professional librarians on the board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC sold people on the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lot of credibility&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• With funding, didn’t take long to get down to medium-sized and small libraries. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High energy,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People satisfied with progress, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Easy to use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vigorous training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Everything worked the way it should&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lots of people enthusiastic about sharing information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Saw how internet could be a partner to their own libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Voinevietch deserves a lot of credit for his willing to fund the vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Should networks merge? Would have some administrative cost savings. They are getting there through cooperation on databases. Some public libraries are joining OhioLink. General Assembly would love to see them merge. School libraries not well funded. InfoOhio is weaker. There are now 3 executive directors: OPOIN, OhioLink, InfoOhio. Through attrition might be able to work all of this out. Not want to invest a lot of time championing but the General Assembly could force it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Turf issues. Asked for plus and minus of merger. All minuses.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Use LSTA funds for databases. State Library continues to provide support additional.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Implement the OPLIN model. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could happen in any state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do you have the commitment of the GA or Governor?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do what Voinovich did. Get BB to doors of libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Use model of Ohio and Missouri with other state GA and Governor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==John==<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Networks Morning Focus Group===<br />
<br />
As part of the morning focus groups, Stephen Hedges of OPLIN, Shawn Walsh of the Northeast Ohio Regional Library System and Glen Horton of the Southwest Ohio Neighboring Libraries. Here are my notes.<br />
<br />
The session’s notes are augmented with a separate group of notes from a meeting with the OPLIN staff.<br />
<br />
*History<br />
**State put out bid for postalized rates to connect everyone, which resulted in the SOMACS contract<br />
**This put in place a standard $450 per month per T1 line for government<br />
**Public libraries were able to buy into the contract<br />
***To get the state to pay for it, they emphasized the need for equity of access<br />
***So they set up OPLIN<br />
**All T1s in the state go back to Columbus to be connected to the Internet by the Ohio Office for IT<br />
*OARNET<br />
***The state-wide network for higher ed<br />
***Connects 90 colleges and universities<br />
**Originally purchased off of SOMACS contract<br />
**Have gone through a network re-design<br />
***Build a new network w/ 1600 miles of fiber<br />
***Connects Higher Ed, K12 and public television<br />
***Several backbone rings throughout the state<br />
***Would like to continue to link entities<br />
*OPLIN<br />
**Manages the contracts for the public libraries<br />
**only drives out connectivity to the main branch of a public library—does not connect all of the branch ibrary<br />
***Libraries can buy into the state contract to get the postalized rate to connect branches<br />
***If the branch libraries connect to OPLIN via the T1+ back to Columbus, OPLIN pays for Internet Connectivity at the State IT OFfice<br />
**Manages the customer service to libraries<br />
**Funding comes from state appropriation and from E-Rate<br />
**Clevenet<br />
***The libraries around Cleveland all share a ILS<br />
***Built own regional network<br />
***To save money, OPLIN funds T1s from Cleveland to libraries and then a DS3 to Columbus<br />
**What OPLIN does well<br />
***Bought quality routers<br />
***Networking consulting for internal wiring<br />
***Support center at the state level<br />
****Goes beyond authority to provide all types of support for libraries, as is requested<br />
**Challenges of OPLIN<br />
***Subscription database authentication<br />
***Network level cache servers<br />
***Anticipation increase in demand because of VOIP and Video<br />
***Getting enough training to public libraries<br />
***Viruses, adware and spyware eating up bandwidth<br />
***Bottleneck @ last mile<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Approx 50% of libraries are CIPA compliant<br />
**But they apply for telecomm charges to pay for the T1<br />
**Does not receive E-Rate to pay OIT to pay for access to the commodity Internet<br />
*Governance<br />
**Has a governing board that serves OPLIN from an advisory perspective instead of a governance modle<br />
**OPLIN reports to the state library office, where the appropriation is made to <br />
*Office for IT<br />
**Manages the last mile<br />
**Manages the network end to end<br />
**Allocates the amount of bandwidth that is needed to connect entities.<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**State funding to libraries (in OH 80-85% is from state gov’t)<br />
**Have a friendly face for customers<br />
***Someone to talk non-techie to the community<br />
**Putting computers out there and providing training<br />
**Statewide service system<br />
**Find a lot of users<br />
*challenges<br />
**No unified vision to put new backbone in place<br />
***Current model was sufficient 10 years ago, but does not scale well<br />
**Getting content out to libraries<br />
***Difficulty with streaming video taking up the bandwidth<br />
**Getting fiber out to the libraries<br />
**Adding a caching server (they indicated a difficulty in getting one installed and working properly)<br />
*Determining bandwidth<br />
**Old policy was everyone gets a T1<br />
**New policy of .01 Mbps per public workstation + .015 per staff workstation<br />
***Does not think this will scale well in the future<br />
*Driving Force<br />
**Equity of access<br />
**Ohio Library council (the state public library professional association<br />
*Services from OPLIN<br />
**Circuit charges<br />
**Databases<br />
**Manages routers and the routes out to the Ohio IT Office<br />
**Customer Service<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Training by State Library<br />
*Regional Library Consortiums Provide:<br />
**Web hosting<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Traning<br />
**Some technical support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working with decision makers<br />
**# of computers is limited<br />
**E-Government<br />
**Trained Staff<br />
*Gates interventions<br />
**Take over technical operations<br />
**Having connectivy and using it are 2 different things<br />
**Recommends funding webhosting <br />
**Grants to figure out how to use the connection<br />
**Education to librarians<br />
**Sell Equity of Access<br />
**Encourage state funding<br />
***Lobbying<br />
***Everyone loves libraries<br />
**Funding for wireless Equipment<br />
**Putting together a support structure<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru===<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
===Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio===<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
===Anthony Yankes===<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru==<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
==Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio==<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
==Anthony Yankes==<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Greg Byerly===<br />
I talkd about your broadband deployment in Ohio question with Roger Verny, Deputy Ohio State Librarian, and we discusse how just as OPLIN was based on equity of access, broadband availability also needs to be based on equity of access. The underserved areas need access to resources that developed areas do. The way you get to resources today is through broadband access. The Gates Foundation needs to lend not only its money but its political cache in reducing the digital divide. They need to be the Champion.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Visit_Data&diff=2573Ohio State Visit Data2007-04-02T18:04:39Z<p>Mbard: /* Networks Morning Focus Group */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
===The History of OIPLIN===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Roger Verney, State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Steve Wood, Cleveland Heights Public Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tony Yankus, currently in State IT office, formerly at OPLIN and State Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OHIOLink formed in mid-80s.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities went to Board of Regents to get new libraries and the Bd of Regents said, no more buildings, share resources instead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
So OhioLink was formed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tom Sanville, head of OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom takes marching orders from academic community. The Academic community is moving closer to public libraries. Some public libraries on OhioLink now. But in the beginning, OhioLink did not want public libraries involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Concept of public libraries piggybacking on OhioLink. Tom said no, not interested. Didn’t need public libraries. One of the criteria for participating in OhioLink was that you had to have Innovative Interfaces Inc. (III). Public libraries were not interested in III. Big metro libraries were on DRA and didn’t want to change to III. Cincinnati and Columbus had homegrown systems. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg Byerly at Kent. Helped to put together OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Don Tolliver from Kent and someone else from Higher Ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greg was hired to create OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Byerly was hired to put together OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also hired to put together InfoOhio. InfoOhio didn’t have money and was a poor stepchild.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council, Fran Haley was the new person at OLC. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Fran was the big leader, combined with Greg Byerly. Greg had the ideas and Fran made it happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dick Cheski was very weak and not much liked. Tony was director of library development at the State Library. Roger came to State Library from Higher Ed. Steve Wood was Director of Cleveland Heights.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran picked carefully people that she wanted to be involved as Co-chairs. Then she invited the entire library community to participate. If you are interested, come to the meetings. Whole library community knew what was happening. Democracy in action. Not done behind closed doors. Tried to involve trustees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Produced the proposal (OPLIN, 1994. Byerly wrote most of it. Got $50,000 from legislature to fund meetings. Dave Miller, on OLC board, got Randy Gardner, a state legislator who became the champion for the project financially. &lt;em&gt;(See Dave Miller’s version of this.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Had great idea in proposal, now how do we get the money? Library community grass roots effort. Greg Browning, head of Budget and Management Office. Got $5 million over two years to start it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Couldn’t happen now. No leadership or money to do it. A lot more money was available. State was rolling in money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
People, need, and money all came together in 1995, July 1. Browning just put the money in the budget and it was funded. Librarians didn’t have to lobby much.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tony was the first Director of OPLIN. March 15, 1996, unveiled first OPLIN web site, gave everybody a T1. Mission: Equity of Access to Information.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In some small libraries, OPLIN pipe was the biggest pipe coming into the area.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
249 out of 250 libraries joined immediately. (Or at least verr soon).&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A lot of talks, dog and pony shows to show what was possible. Had several “summits” to demonstrate. Programs at the association meeting in the fall of 95. Did show and tell of what it might look like. Statewide video conference at 8 sites on Ground Hog Day in 96. Reached 500 staff members that day. Nothing to show on the internet. No WWW yet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Said you can run your automation system on it. Issue in national library community was to get libraries connected to the Internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Under Tony three major things:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• telecommunication connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• access to the internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• a suite of databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Discover Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OH Kids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o What tree is this?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ohio women&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Had the content created for them by others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Major reasons for OPLIN was to provide government information but there was little online information from the government to provide.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget grew to buy PCs for the local libraries. 3 PCs for every library. At least some had to be available for the public. This came from Randy Gardner. $5 million for connectivity and $8 million for PCs and other services such as routers.. This was a one-time deal. Since then, OPLIN has received minimal increase. E-rate has been a big help. Still about $5 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cheski, then State Librarian, tried to get control over OPLIN. Didn’t succeed and quit.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Administrative overhead for OPLIN had to be limited to 3%. Good OPLIN Board. Had a great political sense and management know how. Knew constitueces. Great leadership in John Wallach. Great Executive Committee, solved problems and kept moving.<br />
Tony would come up with ideas and budget proposals, talk about them and the Board supported most of them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Amount Tony accomplished with state contracts for telecom and databases was incredible. Group of children’s librarians. Told them to come up with ideas and they did: Ohio Kids.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meribeth Mansfield wrote an article for LJ. Future of public libraries. Summer of 1997.<br />
Got a lot of attention.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
No time to publicize all the great things they were doing. Did have a big kick-off with Governor present.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN has been independent. Board reported to no one. Mike Lucas, State Librarian after Cheski, donated time of fiscal budget staff to help out. State Library still supports OPLIN in this way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;What made it successful? What factors?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Timing (lots of money available)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Leadership (Fran Haley and Greg Byerly and Tony Yankus)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lot of people got enthusiastic about the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians understood the value of the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lots of libraries already automated.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Grass roots support.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Inclusivity of librarians. Asked local librarians to participate in planning.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Broke down barriers between organizations – Fran was a great communicator&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Dedicated the network library by library with cake, coffee, state representative and senator, mayor. Lots of photo ops and positive publicity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran coordinated this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PR packet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioNet did the training of all the librarians to do everything. This is how you turn on the pc, reboot a router, search a database. How to access the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran had a history of lobbying legislature very successfully. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran was a catalyst to bring people together and coordinate who should talk to whom.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Agreement in library community and good lobbying. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Library Council coordinated the message for the legislature so everybody said the same thing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;How would you start now in a state?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to take the leadership role.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to have the attention of someone in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is the right thing to do and we are going to do it now!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Effective lobbying technique&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Open communication between the legislature and the library community&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Libraries Connect Ohio&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Includes State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Info Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talking about databases, virtual reference, resource sharing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summit on May 21st.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Three library communities are talking more than the past but still better than in the past.<br />
Some of the barriers between public and academic libraries are coming down. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Budget History&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Submitted budget request for 1996-97, OPLIN was included in budget request, $4.8 million over 2 years. General revenue funds. $8 million to buy 3 computers for every public library in Ohio and also one time costs for telecom like routers. Gave money to OPLIN and said could use over 2 years. Software, training also included.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Regional library systems in Ohio, 7 of them. OPLIN used some of these systems for training. Paid systems to do this. One system served as the help desk.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Goal to have every library connected with routers and computers for the public and databases for the public. Two staff to begin with, Tony and an office manager.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Operating costs never grew much. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Now only $4.3 million out of general revenue.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$3 million in spending authority includes erate, database fees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget switched over the years away from the state library and then back to it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In State Library budget then moved to State Aid.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This protected it from budget cuts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2005, was $4.7 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cuts brought it down to $4.3 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2000-01 got $100,000 for filtering. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2006-07 got another $100,000 for each of two years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2002-03 requested OPLIN out of general funds and database resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Funding changes every year. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
MORE – Moving Ohio Resources Everywhere&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Managed by the state library. Public and school libraries participate. Share resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
E-rate has been sporadic over the years. Began to get in 2000. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Difficult to plan. Get some years and not in others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Local libraries lobby first for State Aid. Maybe lobby for OPLIN and maybe not.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Now have seven staff. Worked with OARnet at the beginning and now have an OPLIN support center. Staffing not likely to increase or decrease dramatically. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 1===<br />
====Includes librarians and OCCN and Netmedicine====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library currently the backbone but not sure what this means due to changes. Two hundred and fifty one libraries in state generally speaking all to back to Columbus.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cleveland Heights has 3 T1 connections to the branches. They connect with fiber thru local cable company. All city offices, schools and libraries to central cable head-in branch. They are a part of CLVNET which is a backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library connects straight to backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NEO-RLS (regional cooperative) has 400 potential libraries with 92 public libraries. The main traffic filter and management run thru the library system with 1 T1 from OPLIN and 1 cable line. OPLIN &gt;nearest HUB&gt;400 libraries. Use Time Warner high speed for overflow which is bigger than T1.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN provides connection to library together thru consortiums CLVENET and SEO. SEO consortium is now statewide with 75 libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NetWellness – goes thru university network to Cincinnati hub. Use Internet 2 and state backbone. Website available on Internet 2 and commodity network. No security locks, all information available for everyone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Schools use E-Rate with one school access, some are using 3rd Frontier it just depends on where the school is located. If there is a housing authority then they use cable and/or DSL. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Multi layers of library organizations in Ohio are:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN – created for basic needs but not enough pipes for all services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
INFO Ohio – are the schools network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OHIOnet – academic libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The NEO-RLS works totally with OPLIN on all technical issues but this varies per regional which there are 4 Regionals that serve Ohio. NEO-RLS along with OPLIN takes care of all needs of the users that are paying fees. This is supported thru state and local funds. All libraries are a member of the regional but if they don’t pay fees then they are not provided services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The costs for connections:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
ClevNet - $6,000 per month to OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OCCN – 271 million for schools for full T1 access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NetWellness – uses university network and all costs paid by network, does not know costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library – on backbone and pays the same as ClevNet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN is moving to provide fiber to all users. ClevNet also uses a DS3 which OPLIN pays for.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Shared automation systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Clevenet – 31 libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o SEO – 70 libraries, all small&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public access to the network, social networking. Public access is highest users and internet is highest reason for usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Utube&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o MySpace&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ebay &lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable audio books and video&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Netwellness – health media&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Distance learning. Ohio learning network. Using podcasts, downloadable text 500 courses. Student remote access to do homework.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pent up demand will explode&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How get people in rural areas more BB connectivity and people in urban areas $$ to get BB in the home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 21st century grants keep school libraries open after school but not enough of them. Demand still falls on public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Network open 24 hours a day but the highest use is in the afternoon. Lots of available bandwidth in the middle of the night.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Terminals busy constantly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Time limit on use of computers but this contradicts use for distance learning that might require longer to take a course.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some segregation of use to protect catalog access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – parking lot users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• T-1s segregated wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Come to library to get high speed even if they have a computer at home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Know It Now – virtual reference&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Webinars, WebJunction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Meetings online – interactive video networking for training and meetings. Desk top delivery.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Mind set change – not to use new technology&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Online coursework – distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Lack of bandwidth is holding back technology.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digitization of books/other media, archives, photos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Genealogy resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University of Phoenix model – interactive, virtual schools, distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP – Management of system&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More computer stations for internet access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If citywide BB access to home, library resources would be more available. Some cities are adding citywide wireless access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Would it be more cost effective if all on same BIG pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Video delivery usage is increasing need to be at the get on the band wagon with this service. Would like to see video download available to patron. If the network availability cannot be obtained thru us than they will go around us.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• No one has sufficient bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They limit use of patrons&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers they put out&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to limit in PM when use is highest so makes problem worse&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit types of activities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Timing of training, can’t do in the afternoon&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Demand on system grows and cannot use – slow email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Different size of pipes – get rid of bottlenecks. Only as good as smallest pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works in OPLIN cloud but expensive to cross networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Hard to predict future use, explosive growth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN is trying to replace copper with fiber up to 10 megs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Want scalable fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Look at use growth in past. Increase in order of magnitude. Look at other industries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Will state lines reach a bottleneck nationally or internationally&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber.. Put 10 megs everywhere.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Find weak points – bottleneck and replace with fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Take advantage of research&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Policy makers and industry keep a lid on development to make money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Next generation is fiber and wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Create a think tank on library issues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Watch trends and try to predict&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Possible to replace 3 T1’s with 10 mg of fiber line which should last for awhile but may not last as long as estimated but a second fiber line can be added without additional installation charges which will be the best long term benefit.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Still need to look at the last 5 years and how there has been a double or triple increase in technologic advances and usage and then figure this will continue so as trends keep increase we should plan to expand broadband capabilities as much as possible. Currently OPLIN is watching the trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“It may be good idea to just install 10mg of fiber everywhere. The weak points of fiber need to be found and eliminated, for example the fiber line going into the house is replaced with cooper and this will slowdown processing. “&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“There is a third wire in most house wiring which could be used with phone lines.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Believe that people are doing research (MIT) but not sharing research on information trends with the public. There is a need to check with MIT and other research labs for projects in development. Third frontier needs to have a liaison from the library field to keep abreast of trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Libraries should be brought to the front of the line with think tanks and research on future projects. The fourth element in research and trends is the right time.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Ubiquitous BB throughout state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digital divide – easy convenient, cheap, access to BB &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Same as telephone and TV&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adequate training in use for everybody&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Computer and TV on same box. If cable, can computer connect?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How leverage to get greater access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People read and learn more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Increased information literacy skills&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If get stuck on google, ask “Do you want help from a librarian” – connect directly to librarian who can see what already looked at&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google direct to DB search&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google and libraries get together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Equity of access to next generation network services to information age communities to enable education and economic development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• $$, individual, local libraries, states, get rid of concept to “do more with less”. Need to make the case that high speed connectivity is a good thing to have, need to pay for it. Ohio’s new government “gets it”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership – political. Need to capture $$ for the right project. Higher priority on political agenda. The new Ohio governor seems interested in Broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Elitist mind set that not everybody needs high speed connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T, monoploly without any government control. 2/3 of OPLIN comes through the private sector; 1/3 through higher ed network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership in the private sector&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Turfism – 3 networks, benefit to get together but they don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Librarians don’t want to change&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN applies for its connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Individual libraries apply for POTS and any additional connectivity beyond &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State gets $70 million from e-rate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Don’t like erate because&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Perception that paperwork is onerous (but it really isn’t)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Eligibility changes every year&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Needs to be simplified&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o CIPA – Library by library, funding through OPLIN, $100,000 in state funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Actually, once you learn how to fill out the forms, it’s not that bad.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN – Helps with LAN as well as WAN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Regional libraries – respond to technical problems, try and analyze where the problem is&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Own staff in medium to large public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Research think tank to help libraries plan for the future&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocacy – people listen to the Gates name&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• States that don’t have much connectivity get $$ to help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Get states to work together. There is currently little communication between states&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocate with Governors’ about BB policy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Establish a national grant program for libraries to apply to do innovative projects&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ T-1 is laughable., Need a formula based on need and use.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide an equal big pipe to all based on high use. “Internet use is a self fulfilling prophesy.” All libraries will fill a bib pipe. Need video to desktop.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Long term effort to track over time. Need a tool for evaluation need and planning.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Need to look at how they big/whole picture is changing over time and provide national leadership.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 2===<br />
====All Librarians====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• All in OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Central Library Consortium, connect directly to CLC then CLC’s connects to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Road Runner through Time Warner Cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o ILS has 1 T1 through OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Internet through Cable, not sure of speed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Columbus&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Now&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 2-3 T1s to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg to library data center&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg from OPLIN to Internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 50 meg to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 100 meg to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Cheaper using fiber for new network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New configuration could be a big bottleneck&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Worthington, 10 meg to OPLIN for each branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2 T-1 to Columbus for ILS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 ptp between branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Redundancy over OPLIN lines&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Delaware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 franctionalized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ to main&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ¼ to each of the brances&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to big branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to main with franction to small branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated wirelnees from Time Warner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OPLIN lines paid directly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Extra telecom lines from libraries budget&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Erate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Scalable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Yes, ask OPLIN who askes State IT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Do a load survey to see&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State IT notifies if there’s a problem&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ethernet in Worthington&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN negotiated the contract&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T paid to bring the line across public road&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library paid from road to library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Everybody trying to move to fiber because T-1s are too expensive&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• ILS – 70% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public internet – 80% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – one libraries shuts it off at night so public can’t use from parking lot BUT extending to nearby parks during the day&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff resources to central databases, 15% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Large emails – remote from home for public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote access in general&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High definition resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Audio and visual downloads&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• &lt;strong&gt;People come to the library to learn how to do this and then go home and do it but while they are learning they do it at the library&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• E-book download&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Basic tech training for users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Productivity suites&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Download more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Music&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Videos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP in more rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More digital collections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Interavtive web site with a community bulletin board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More workstations&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Web casts – story times&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Voicera – Star trek communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patron generated ILL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote connectivity – can’t get into library catalog&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow and dropped access to web&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff access to resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Segregate lines ½ staff and 2/3 public&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee only for phones&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gurantee ILS over everything else&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vacera – badge communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Inconsistency in vendor market – service is bad – can’t keep track of IP addresses, slow response&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Price, what can you afford. Compare price and found 50 megs was only a little more than 10 megs in cost.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• What’s available in the community? Industry availability in rural area, Most users to not have BB access. Build a highway in community and supposed to be stringing fiber with it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Monitor bandwidth to determine use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tech plans every 3 years so plan then for new technology and branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trend analysis&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract for shorter terms with clauses for scalability at a certain price&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ILS talk to each other and patron generated ILL, enough bandwidth for this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How much? - depends on the library and &lt;strong&gt;how long the community stays rural&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• As much bandwidth for staff and public to do what they want and need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library service 24-7&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library set the standards for public internet access (restaurants, etc. have to live up to library reputation)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Proactive with new technology and new content – movies, games, without worrying about bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocating for industry standards so don’t have to teach different technologies to public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Work with feds to discover resources – e government&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $$ State funding has been static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Local competition with police and fire for $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Geography&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vendor choice – lack of competition&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Infrastructure plan&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State and local orgs, companies don’t talk about their plans. Law if unintended consequences. Need more coordination&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o No collaboration in place to make decisions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Need to communicate about their plans&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lack of cooperation in planning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Local staffing and technology expertise&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Voting public doesn’t understand new role of libraries Need for technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Technical expertise for configuration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Understanding of the public about the role of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• CIPA – all filter but one&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filter at different levels controlled by parental approval and bar code&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Apply?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o POTS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Telecom if not by OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Problems?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Forms “Biggest bureaucracy in the whole world”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2-3 months full time for staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Difficult to contract in their time frame&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Rules and regulations keep changing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vendor doesn’t send the $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Long drawn out process&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BUT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Worth a lot of money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Own staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Paid consultant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN and OPLINTech list serv&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trade and professional literature, share information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract with regional cooperatives&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• WebJunction and other online resurces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State direct for sudden and drastic problems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Make a deal with industry to offer long term service at good rates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pressure on Hollywood etc to offer more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Alternate sources of bandwidth such as over electric lines. Plug into electric outlet to get bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide line directly in certain rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test MS products first. Get systems stable and backward compliant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test software –special grants to make sure new computers can run new software&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Value of OPLIN? What makes it a success?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Stable and funded&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Listens to individual libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adds to services and improves services, not static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances needs of large metro and small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances politics&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works with OLC (professional public library association) to get needs to General Assembly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works closely with state network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Communicates well and facilitates communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Brought email to libraries in the state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lot of networks –have trouble working together. Afraid there is duplication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Maintain identify and communicate well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works well with state library to do training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Ohio is a library rich state and a lot of library organizations are looking at their missions and how to improve services. All libraries and library organizations are having trouble trying not to duplicate efforts and working together. Adding to this is the fact that libraries are not expecting each organization to do specific or certain things for them.<br />
Many libraries are having trouble maintaining their identify and communicating well and are pulled in too many different directions”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Greg Byerly===<br />
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;See also interviews with OPLIN pioneers and Dave Miller&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
How it all started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Article in library hi tech in 1996. Vol 14, issues 2-3, 1996.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Similar document for OhioLink and InfoLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
All three networks started with OCLC. OCLC was to do two things, mechanize production of catalog cards and a realtime circ system for Ohio universities. State of Ohio gave money to start.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
1988, Bd of Regents looking at requests to build buildings. Regents said no more money to build more libraries because everything would be electronic. So university libraries upset so came up with regional storage facilities in 1986. Asked for money for storage facilities. Asked for money for a network to have an online integrated circulation system for all universities $2.1 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Grey was at Kent state and started NOTICE. Dean of libraries at Kent and Ohio State were on the commission to start OhioLink. Greg kept giving ideas and he got invited to go to a meeting with the regents. Wanted OhioLink in 9-12 months. Greg asked to start it up in two years. Loaned from Kent State to OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Organized process to get everyone involved. 16 universities plus 2 private universities. Key getting 3 people from every university on a task force or committee. Huge RFP with vendors demonstrating what they could do.. 150 people at vendor presentations. Got all these people to participate. Miracles don’t happen if try and do quickly. Need to take time to get people to agree. Need smaller universities and large university to get on the same system. Originally 18 libraries had 13 different systems. Get everybody involved so that when a decision had to be made, they were all in agreement. Joined III. First big customer of III.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio in 1987-88 had gotten its first supercomputer. Telecom networks between all universities. Original OhioLink Board had two people, one from OARnet and one from state IT. Everybody wins if everybody gets bigger computers. Everything came together at the right time. System became the backbone of the internet. It became technologically possible to link everybody together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Public libraries didn’t have a clue. Bd. of Regents was afraid that the public libraries would steal their thunder and do something. Greg had loyalties to both public and academic. Told public libraries and they didn’t seem to care. 1985 was when they got a lot of money in change of state aid. Big tension between 7 major metros and rural. Everyone was trying to stake their claim. Public libraries were happy because they had a lot of money. In 1991 didn’t see a need to combine resource into a network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
InforOhio – In 1989, even before III contract. School libraries in NE Ohio wanted to start an OhioLink for the schools. Greg felt schools couldn’t do it because too many and not connected. BUT…&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Educational Computer Network. Already linked all the schools over a separate state network. Had nothing to do with libraries. Allowed communication over state lines but only to the schools. Public libraries and academic libraries received big infusions of money from the state level to do this. Schools have never had this infusion of money. InfoOhio had its first libraries online in 1991. Greg did a bid process for school libraries. 23 regional computer sites. Schools connect to one of the regional sites and then to OECN and to each other. Now called ITCs or Instructional Technology Center. These are run locally with a board of local superintendents. Buy software programs for school lunch, bus schedules. School libraries also connected. About half of the Superintendents or on the Board. Some of the ITCs get cheaper rates for databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran Haley came to Ohio to head OLC. 1994 called Greg. Knew about OhioLink. Asked why there is no OhioLink for public libraries. Fran and OLC hired Greg in 1994 to develop the 1994 plan. That paper asked for 5 million dollars over two years to get this done. Governor gave them 4.6million. Announced in state of the budget. Legislators called and asked, if you get an extra $8 million can you do it all? They said yes. This was the beginning of funding for OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg said had to get on state network. Fran said, why aren’t they? Greg said, they had never asked. Asked to get on and did. Had to get in early so considered as the network expanded. Met with Tim Steiner and other in state network. If had money behind it, then his duty as a state network to serve public libraries. He does lottery, highway patrol, everything expanding rapidly. Public libraries were the slowest to get involved. By waiting it became more possible for disparate for libraries to talk to each other. OhioLink everybody had to be on the same system. By the time public libraries joined, that was no longer necessary.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Over 2400 school libraries all use Sirsi/Dynix. InfoOhio is Sirsi/Dynix largest customer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom Sanville, director of OhioLink. One of the fiercest persons to get statewide contracts for databases. First was Proquest in 1996.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Libraries Connect has the State Library, OPLIN, OhioLink, and InfoOhio working together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN got EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
InfoOhio got small subset of Proquest.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Finally got together to do one state wide bid for general publications which was EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cooperate for database contracts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Make a lot of sense in theory to be one network but where they have to work together they work together very well. Mike Lucas called these meetings for them to meet and talk about common issues.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg lobbied for Lib Connect Plus. Several times a year this group expands to include the 3 professional associations and library school.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
SchoolRoom – online portal for elementary schools. Federated search. Looks at school libs, public libs, databases, and best websites chosen by teachers, and google sites.<br />
Sirsi-Dynis. Rooms. Have room for different searches.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Feels 3 networks work. Libraries Connect does what’s necessary for cooperation. Each network has its own funding stream. Each runs on its own subset of state system. Academic use I2.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN established by OLC. State Library was not at all interested in OPLIN. Participated in OhioLInk so didn’t care. High contention between Cheski and OPLIN. Day OPLIN got funded, Cheski retired. Set OPLIN separate so was not part of State Library. Now?? State Library tried once to get OPLIN. No reason OPLIN couldn’t function with state library. But why rock the boat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN works best on state network. Push state to get better rates. With a new governor who is doing Broadband Initiative. Cooperation is good. Don’t think can get a better contract that state can.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Success factors:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Participation getting everyone involved, no surprises, here is what we are planning, get involved&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Well connected, respected leaders in an advisory council&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two trustees, library directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Working librarians who actually know and do something&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Task force on administration, money, procedures, policies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two people from board as chairs and task forces do work&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Committees under task forces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Get directors to let staff come&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Had regional meetings. Handed out draft of document. Get seven metro libraries to buy in. Cleveland send top tech people to serve so other big metros asked to have their people on it as well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Organization that goes behind it led by someone neutral – Greg and Fran&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Someone that goes to all the meetings and takes notes and puts it all together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC paid them a little money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vision to do this and ignoring any perceived barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Blasted through barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Acknowledge barriers and then overcome them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Could be done now. Public librarians are bummed because not getting an increase.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State Libraries efforts to do resource sharing. MORE – Moving Online Resources Everywhere. LSTA gave 11 million to schools to automate school libraries. Maybe state library should now spend money another way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Replicate in other states what has happened in Ohio and Missouri&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Send people to meetings&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Neutral people&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Frustration with Gates.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Spends money on Smaller Learning Communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Divide big school into small school&lt;br/&gt;<br />
These people know nothing about school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates doesn’t see value of school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Dave Miller===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Chairman of the...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Dave came in after the librarians got the ball rolling.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg Byerly really got it started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council (OLC) got behind the idea and it became a reality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was president of OLC. Not involved in working with Greg. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was in Columbus for something else. Got a call from OLC asking if he would call state representative to lobby for more funding from general assembly for operational spending for public libraries. Went to a pay phone to call the state representative sponsoring the bill.. His was the 8th call for same thing. Many librarians had already called. Randy Gardner is now a state senator. He said he agreed but was cutting funding percentage. It was a good year for one time funding. Governor had already put in a budget request for 4.5 million for OPLIN but would not bring it inside libraries. Most of big libraries has the money to bring it inside. Many of the small ones could not afford it. Standing in a wet phone booth, Miller asked for state to provide the money to bring OPLIN inside the library and internet work stations for the public. How much?<br />
Dave came up with $5 million. 250 library districts at the time times about $10,000 per library. Passed the house. Senate approved $10 million. Settled on $ 8 million.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Helped to get all the libraries involved. Also gave Tony Yankus the resources to pay for training services for the library. In Governor’s 4.5 million didn’t provide for any training. Bought computers, routhers, training, databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Miller is now chair of state library board. He moved to that after he was chair of OLC Board.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
His role with OPLIN now is to support the use of LSTA funds to supplement databases. <br />
They will have a retreat next week. Get newsbank. OPLIN, Ohio-Link, and Info Ohio work together to get databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The State Library approves OPLIN board member but based on their recommendations. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Come close to bringing OPLIN into the state library. For various reasons their board said no. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Advantage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Line item under state library budget but not part of state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Provide services for them&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HR services&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Bookkeeping, Diane Fink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Monitors their books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Technical report due and state library IT people do the report&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General assembly approves OPLIN budget through state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Protection not as strong&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Disadvantages&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN doesn’t have 100% trust in state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library Bd blocked two OPLIN Board members to be OPLIN Directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When OPLIN got funded, Dick wanted it to be part of the state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Factors that lead to success&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tony Yankus was the right person for the job&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Tony and Grey Byerly can see things others can’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vision of how it can all come together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Laid firm foundation then the challenge was gone for Tony&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC coming into its own. Created OLC from OLA and OLTA.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Academics pulled out into their own organization and formed OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Had the right energy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Did some things the state library might do but didn’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o &lt;strong&gt;If OLC said something was good, they would believe it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Flip flop between prof and trustee as president of OLC (used to 10 years ago, still?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Very active professional librarians on the board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC sold people on the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lot of credibility&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• With funding, didn’t take long to get down to medium-sized and small libraries. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High energy,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People satisfied with progress, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Easy to use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vigorous training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Everything worked the way it should&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lots of people enthusiastic about sharing information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Saw how internet could be a partner to their own libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Voinevietch deserves a lot of credit for his willing to fund the vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Should networks merge? Would have some administrative cost savings. They are getting there through cooperation on databases. Some public libraries are joining OhioLink. General Assembly would love to see them merge. School libraries not well funded. InfoOhio is weaker. There are now 3 executive directors: OPOIN, OhioLink, InfoOhio. Through attrition might be able to work all of this out. Not want to invest a lot of time championing but the General Assembly could force it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Turf issues. Asked for plus and minus of merger. All minuses.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Use LSTA funds for databases. State Library continues to provide support additional.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Implement the OPLIN model. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could happen in any state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do you have the commitment of the GA or Governor?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do what Voinovich did. Get BB to doors of libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Use model of Ohio and Missouri with other state GA and Governor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==John==<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Networks Morning Focus Group===<br />
<br />
As part of the morning focus groups, Stephen Hedges of OPLIN, Shawn Walsh of the Northeast Ohio Regional Library System and Glen Horton of the Southwest Ohio Neighboring Libraries. Here are my notes.<br />
<br />
The session’s notes are augmented with a separate group of notes from a meeting with the OPLIN staff.<br />
<br />
*History<br />
**State put out bid for postalized rates to connect everyone, which resulted in the SOMACS contract<br />
**This put in place a standard $450 per month per T1 line for government<br />
**Public libraries were able to buy into the contract<br />
***To get the state to pay for it, they emphasized the need for equity of access<br />
***So they set up OPLIN<br />
**All T1s in the state go back to Columbus to be connected to the Internet by the Ohio Office for IT<br />
*OARNET<br />
***The state-wide network for higher ed<br />
***Connects 90 colleges and universities<br />
**Originally purchased off of SOMACS contract<br />
**Have gone through a network re-design<br />
***Build a new network w/ 1600 miles of fiber<br />
***Connects Higher Ed, K12 and public television<br />
***Several backbone rings throughout the state<br />
***Would like to continue to link entities<br />
*OPLIN<br />
**Manages the contracts for the public libraries<br />
**only drives out connectivity to the main branch of a public library—does not connect all of the branch ibrary<br />
***Libraries can buy into the state contract to get the postalized rate to connect branches<br />
***If the branch libraries connect to OPLIN via the T1+ back to Columbus, OPLIN pays for Internet Connectivity at the State IT OFfice<br />
**Manages the customer service to libraries<br />
**Funding comes from state appropriation and from E-Rate<br />
**Clevenet<br />
***The libraries around Cleveland all share a ILS<br />
***Built own regional network<br />
***To save money, OPLIN funds T1s from Cleveland to libraries and then a DS3 to Columbus<br />
**What OPLIN does well<br />
***Bought quality routers<br />
***Networking consulting for internal wiring<br />
***Support center at the state level<br />
****Goes beyond authority to provide all types of support for libraries, as is requested<br />
**Challenges of OPLIN<br />
***Subscription database authentication<br />
***Network level cache servers<br />
***Anticipation increase in demand because of VOIP and Video<br />
***Getting enough training to public libraries<br />
***Viruses, adware and spyware eating up bandwidth<br />
***Bottleneck @ last mile<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Approx 50% of libraries are CIPA compliant<br />
**But they apply for telecomm charges to pay for the T1<br />
**Does not receive E-Rate to pay OIT to pay for access to the commodity Internet<br />
*Governance<br />
**Has a governing board that serves OPLIN from an advisory perspective instead of a governance modle<br />
**OPLIN reports to the state library office, where the appropriation is made to <br />
*Office for IT<br />
**Manages the last mile<br />
**Manages the network end to end<br />
**Allocates the amount of bandwidth that is needed to connect entities.<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**State funding to libraries (in OH 80-85% is from state gov’t)<br />
**Have a friendly face for customers<br />
***Someone to talk non-techie to the community<br />
**Putting computers out there and providing training<br />
**Statewide service system<br />
**Find a lot of users<br />
*challenges<br />
**No unified vision to put new backbone in place<br />
***Current model was sufficient 10 years ago, but does not scale well<br />
**Getting content out to libraries<br />
***Difficulty with streaming video taking up the bandwidth<br />
**Getting fiber out to the libraries<br />
**Adding a caching server (they indicated a difficulty in getting one installed and working properly)<br />
*Determining bandwidth<br />
**Old policy was everyone gets a T1<br />
**New policy of .01 Mbps per public workstation + .015 per staff workstation<br />
***Does not think this will scale well in the future<br />
*Driving Force<br />
**Equity of access<br />
**Ohio Library council (the state public library professional association<br />
*Services from OPLIN<br />
**Circuit charges<br />
**Databases<br />
**Manages routers and the routes out to the Ohio IT Office<br />
**Customer Service<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Training by State Library<br />
*Regional Library Consortiums Provide:<br />
**Web hosting<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Traning<br />
**Some technical support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working with decision makers<br />
**# of computers is limited<br />
**E-Government<br />
**Trained Staff<br />
*Gates interventions<br />
**Take over technical operations<br />
**Having connectivy and using it are 2 different things<br />
**Recommends funding webhosting <br />
**Grants to figure out how to use the connection<br />
**Education to librarians<br />
**Sell Equity of Access<br />
**Encourage state funding<br />
***Lobbying<br />
***Everyone loves libraries<br />
**Funding for wireless Equipment<br />
**Putting together a support structure<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru==<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
===Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio===<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
===Anthony Yankes===<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru==<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
==Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio==<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
==Anthony Yankes==<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Greg Byerly===<br />
I talkd about your broadband deployment in Ohio question with Roger Verny, Deputy Ohio State Librarian, and we discusse how just as OPLIN was based on equity of access, broadband availability also needs to be based on equity of access. The underserved areas need access to resources that developed areas do. The way you get to resources today is through broadband access. The Gates Foundation needs to lend not only its money but its political cache in reducing the digital divide. They need to be the Champion.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Visit_Data&diff=2572Ohio State Visit Data2007-04-02T18:03:39Z<p>Mbard: /* Mark */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
===The History of OIPLIN===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Roger Verney, State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Steve Wood, Cleveland Heights Public Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tony Yankus, currently in State IT office, formerly at OPLIN and State Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OHIOLink formed in mid-80s.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities went to Board of Regents to get new libraries and the Bd of Regents said, no more buildings, share resources instead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
So OhioLink was formed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tom Sanville, head of OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom takes marching orders from academic community. The Academic community is moving closer to public libraries. Some public libraries on OhioLink now. But in the beginning, OhioLink did not want public libraries involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Concept of public libraries piggybacking on OhioLink. Tom said no, not interested. Didn’t need public libraries. One of the criteria for participating in OhioLink was that you had to have Innovative Interfaces Inc. (III). Public libraries were not interested in III. Big metro libraries were on DRA and didn’t want to change to III. Cincinnati and Columbus had homegrown systems. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg Byerly at Kent. Helped to put together OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Don Tolliver from Kent and someone else from Higher Ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greg was hired to create OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Byerly was hired to put together OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also hired to put together InfoOhio. InfoOhio didn’t have money and was a poor stepchild.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council, Fran Haley was the new person at OLC. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Fran was the big leader, combined with Greg Byerly. Greg had the ideas and Fran made it happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dick Cheski was very weak and not much liked. Tony was director of library development at the State Library. Roger came to State Library from Higher Ed. Steve Wood was Director of Cleveland Heights.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran picked carefully people that she wanted to be involved as Co-chairs. Then she invited the entire library community to participate. If you are interested, come to the meetings. Whole library community knew what was happening. Democracy in action. Not done behind closed doors. Tried to involve trustees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Produced the proposal (OPLIN, 1994. Byerly wrote most of it. Got $50,000 from legislature to fund meetings. Dave Miller, on OLC board, got Randy Gardner, a state legislator who became the champion for the project financially. &lt;em&gt;(See Dave Miller’s version of this.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Had great idea in proposal, now how do we get the money? Library community grass roots effort. Greg Browning, head of Budget and Management Office. Got $5 million over two years to start it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Couldn’t happen now. No leadership or money to do it. A lot more money was available. State was rolling in money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
People, need, and money all came together in 1995, July 1. Browning just put the money in the budget and it was funded. Librarians didn’t have to lobby much.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tony was the first Director of OPLIN. March 15, 1996, unveiled first OPLIN web site, gave everybody a T1. Mission: Equity of Access to Information.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In some small libraries, OPLIN pipe was the biggest pipe coming into the area.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
249 out of 250 libraries joined immediately. (Or at least verr soon).&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A lot of talks, dog and pony shows to show what was possible. Had several “summits” to demonstrate. Programs at the association meeting in the fall of 95. Did show and tell of what it might look like. Statewide video conference at 8 sites on Ground Hog Day in 96. Reached 500 staff members that day. Nothing to show on the internet. No WWW yet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Said you can run your automation system on it. Issue in national library community was to get libraries connected to the Internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Under Tony three major things:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• telecommunication connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• access to the internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• a suite of databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Discover Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OH Kids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o What tree is this?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ohio women&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Had the content created for them by others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Major reasons for OPLIN was to provide government information but there was little online information from the government to provide.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget grew to buy PCs for the local libraries. 3 PCs for every library. At least some had to be available for the public. This came from Randy Gardner. $5 million for connectivity and $8 million for PCs and other services such as routers.. This was a one-time deal. Since then, OPLIN has received minimal increase. E-rate has been a big help. Still about $5 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cheski, then State Librarian, tried to get control over OPLIN. Didn’t succeed and quit.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Administrative overhead for OPLIN had to be limited to 3%. Good OPLIN Board. Had a great political sense and management know how. Knew constitueces. Great leadership in John Wallach. Great Executive Committee, solved problems and kept moving.<br />
Tony would come up with ideas and budget proposals, talk about them and the Board supported most of them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Amount Tony accomplished with state contracts for telecom and databases was incredible. Group of children’s librarians. Told them to come up with ideas and they did: Ohio Kids.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meribeth Mansfield wrote an article for LJ. Future of public libraries. Summer of 1997.<br />
Got a lot of attention.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
No time to publicize all the great things they were doing. Did have a big kick-off with Governor present.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN has been independent. Board reported to no one. Mike Lucas, State Librarian after Cheski, donated time of fiscal budget staff to help out. State Library still supports OPLIN in this way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;What made it successful? What factors?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Timing (lots of money available)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Leadership (Fran Haley and Greg Byerly and Tony Yankus)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lot of people got enthusiastic about the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians understood the value of the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lots of libraries already automated.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Grass roots support.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Inclusivity of librarians. Asked local librarians to participate in planning.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Broke down barriers between organizations – Fran was a great communicator&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Dedicated the network library by library with cake, coffee, state representative and senator, mayor. Lots of photo ops and positive publicity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran coordinated this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PR packet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioNet did the training of all the librarians to do everything. This is how you turn on the pc, reboot a router, search a database. How to access the internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran had a history of lobbying legislature very successfully. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fran was a catalyst to bring people together and coordinate who should talk to whom.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Agreement in library community and good lobbying. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Library Council coordinated the message for the legislature so everybody said the same thing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;How would you start now in a state?&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to take the leadership role.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Someone has to have the attention of someone in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is the right thing to do and we are going to do it now!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Effective lobbying technique&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Open communication between the legislature and the library community&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Libraries Connect Ohio&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Includes State Library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Info Ohio&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talking about databases, virtual reference, resource sharing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summit on May 21st.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Three library communities are talking more than the past but still better than in the past.<br />
Some of the barriers between public and academic libraries are coming down. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;u&gt;Budget History&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Submitted budget request for 1996-97, OPLIN was included in budget request, $4.8 million over 2 years. General revenue funds. $8 million to buy 3 computers for every public library in Ohio and also one time costs for telecom like routers. Gave money to OPLIN and said could use over 2 years. Software, training also included.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Regional library systems in Ohio, 7 of them. OPLIN used some of these systems for training. Paid systems to do this. One system served as the help desk.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Goal to have every library connected with routers and computers for the public and databases for the public. Two staff to begin with, Tony and an office manager.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Operating costs never grew much. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
Now only $4.3 million out of general revenue.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$3 million in spending authority includes erate, database fees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Budget switched over the years away from the state library and then back to it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In State Library budget then moved to State Aid.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This protected it from budget cuts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2005, was $4.7 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cuts brought it down to $4.3 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2000-01 got $100,000 for filtering. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2006-07 got another $100,000 for each of two years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2002-03 requested OPLIN out of general funds and database resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Funding changes every year. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
MORE – Moving Ohio Resources Everywhere&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Managed by the state library. Public and school libraries participate. Share resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
E-rate has been sporadic over the years. Began to get in 2000. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Difficult to plan. Get some years and not in others.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Local libraries lobby first for State Aid. Maybe lobby for OPLIN and maybe not.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Now have seven staff. Worked with OARnet at the beginning and now have an OPLIN support center. Staffing not likely to increase or decrease dramatically. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 1===<br />
====Includes librarians and OCCN and Netmedicine====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library currently the backbone but not sure what this means due to changes. Two hundred and fifty one libraries in state generally speaking all to back to Columbus.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cleveland Heights has 3 T1 connections to the branches. They connect with fiber thru local cable company. All city offices, schools and libraries to central cable head-in branch. They are a part of CLVNET which is a backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
State Library connects straight to backbone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NEO-RLS (regional cooperative) has 400 potential libraries with 92 public libraries. The main traffic filter and management run thru the library system with 1 T1 from OPLIN and 1 cable line. OPLIN &gt;nearest HUB&gt;400 libraries. Use Time Warner high speed for overflow which is bigger than T1.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN provides connection to library together thru consortiums CLVENET and SEO. SEO consortium is now statewide with 75 libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
NetWellness – goes thru university network to Cincinnati hub. Use Internet 2 and state backbone. Website available on Internet 2 and commodity network. No security locks, all information available for everyone.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Schools use E-Rate with one school access, some are using 3rd Frontier it just depends on where the school is located. If there is a housing authority then they use cable and/or DSL. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Multi layers of library organizations in Ohio are:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN – created for basic needs but not enough pipes for all services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
INFO Ohio – are the schools network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OHIOnet – academic libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The NEO-RLS works totally with OPLIN on all technical issues but this varies per regional which there are 4 Regionals that serve Ohio. NEO-RLS along with OPLIN takes care of all needs of the users that are paying fees. This is supported thru state and local funds. All libraries are a member of the regional but if they don’t pay fees then they are not provided services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The costs for connections:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
ClevNet - $6,000 per month to OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OCCN – 271 million for schools for full T1 access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NetWellness – uses university network and all costs paid by network, does not know costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library – on backbone and pays the same as ClevNet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN is moving to provide fiber to all users. ClevNet also uses a DS3 which OPLIN pays for.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Shared automation systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Clevenet – 31 libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o SEO – 70 libraries, all small&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public access to the network, social networking. Public access is highest users and internet is highest reason for usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Utube&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o MySpace&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ebay &lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Downloadable audio books and video&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Databases&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Netwellness – health media&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Distance learning. Ohio learning network. Using podcasts, downloadable text 500 courses. Student remote access to do homework.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pent up demand will explode&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How get people in rural areas more BB connectivity and people in urban areas $$ to get BB in the home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 21st century grants keep school libraries open after school but not enough of them. Demand still falls on public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Network open 24 hours a day but the highest use is in the afternoon. Lots of available bandwidth in the middle of the night.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Terminals busy constantly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Time limit on use of computers but this contradicts use for distance learning that might require longer to take a course.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some segregation of use to protect catalog access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – parking lot users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• T-1s segregated wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Come to library to get high speed even if they have a computer at home&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Know It Now – virtual reference&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Webinars, WebJunction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Meetings online – interactive video networking for training and meetings. Desk top delivery.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Mind set change – not to use new technology&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Online coursework – distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Lack of bandwidth is holding back technology.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digitization of books/other media, archives, photos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Genealogy resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University of Phoenix model – interactive, virtual schools, distance learning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP – Management of system&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More computer stations for internet access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If citywide BB access to home, library resources would be more available. Some cities are adding citywide wireless access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Would it be more cost effective if all on same BIG pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Video delivery usage is increasing need to be at the get on the band wagon with this service. Would like to see video download available to patron. If the network availability cannot be obtained thru us than they will go around us.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• No one has sufficient bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• They limit use of patrons&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers they put out&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to limit in PM when use is highest so makes problem worse&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit types of activities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Timing of training, can’t do in the afternoon&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Demand on system grows and cannot use – slow email&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Different size of pipes – get rid of bottlenecks. Only as good as smallest pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works in OPLIN cloud but expensive to cross networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Limit number of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Hard to predict future use, explosive growth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN is trying to replace copper with fiber up to 10 megs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Want scalable fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Look at use growth in past. Increase in order of magnitude. Look at other industries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Will state lines reach a bottleneck nationally or internationally&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber everywhere. Light all dark fiber.. Put 10 megs everywhere.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Find weak points – bottleneck and replace with fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Take advantage of research&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Policy makers and industry keep a lid on development to make money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Next generation is fiber and wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Create a think tank on library issues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Watch trends and try to predict&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Possible to replace 3 T1’s with 10 mg of fiber line which should last for awhile but may not last as long as estimated but a second fiber line can be added without additional installation charges which will be the best long term benefit.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Still need to look at the last 5 years and how there has been a double or triple increase in technologic advances and usage and then figure this will continue so as trends keep increase we should plan to expand broadband capabilities as much as possible. Currently OPLIN is watching the trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“It may be good idea to just install 10mg of fiber everywhere. The weak points of fiber need to be found and eliminated, for example the fiber line going into the house is replaced with cooper and this will slowdown processing. “&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“There is a third wire in most house wiring which could be used with phone lines.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Believe that people are doing research (MIT) but not sharing research on information trends with the public. There is a need to check with MIT and other research labs for projects in development. Third frontier needs to have a liaison from the library field to keep abreast of trends.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Libraries should be brought to the front of the line with think tanks and research on future projects. The fourth element in research and trends is the right time.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Ubiquitous BB throughout state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Digital divide – easy convenient, cheap, access to BB &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Same as telephone and TV&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adequate training in use for everybody&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Computer and TV on same box. If cable, can computer connect?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How leverage to get greater access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People read and learn more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Increased information literacy skills&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• If get stuck on google, ask “Do you want help from a librarian” – connect directly to librarian who can see what already looked at&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google direct to DB search&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Google and libraries get together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Equity of access to next generation network services to information age communities to enable education and economic development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• $$, individual, local libraries, states, get rid of concept to “do more with less”. Need to make the case that high speed connectivity is a good thing to have, need to pay for it. Ohio’s new government “gets it”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership – political. Need to capture $$ for the right project. Higher priority on political agenda. The new Ohio governor seems interested in Broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Elitist mind set that not everybody needs high speed connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T, monoploly without any government control. 2/3 of OPLIN comes through the private sector; 1/3 through higher ed network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Leadership in the private sector&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Turfism – 3 networks, benefit to get together but they don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Librarians don’t want to change&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN applies for its connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Individual libraries apply for POTS and any additional connectivity beyond &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State gets $70 million from e-rate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Don’t like erate because&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Perception that paperwork is onerous (but it really isn’t)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Eligibility changes every year&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Needs to be simplified&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o CIPA – Library by library, funding through OPLIN, $100,000 in state funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• “Actually, once you learn how to fill out the forms, it’s not that bad.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• OPLIN – Helps with LAN as well as WAN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Regional libraries – respond to technical problems, try and analyze where the problem is&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Own staff in medium to large public libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Research think tank to help libraries plan for the future&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocacy – people listen to the Gates name&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• States that don’t have much connectivity get $$ to help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Get states to work together. There is currently little communication between states&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocate with Governors’ about BB policy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Establish a national grant program for libraries to apply to do innovative projects&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ T-1 is laughable., Need a formula based on need and use.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide an equal big pipe to all based on high use. “Internet use is a self fulfilling prophesy.” All libraries will fill a bib pipe. Need video to desktop.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Long term effort to track over time. Need a tool for evaluation need and planning.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Need to look at how they big/whole picture is changing over time and provide national leadership.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Columbus Focus Group 2===<br />
====All Librarians====<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• All in OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Central Library Consortium, connect directly to CLC then CLC’s connects to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Road Runner through Time Warner Cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o ILS has 1 T1 through OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Internet through Cable, not sure of speed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Columbus&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Now&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 2-3 T1s to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg to library data center&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 45 meg from OPLIN to Internet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 50 meg to each of 20 branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 100 meg to OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Cheaper using fiber for new network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New configuration could be a big bottleneck&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Worthington, 10 meg to OPLIN for each branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2 T-1 to Columbus for ILS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 ptp between branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Redundancy over OPLIN lines&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Delaware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 1 T-1 franctionalized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ½ to main&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ¼ to each of the brances&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o New&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to big branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• 1 T-1 to main with franction to small branch&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated wirelnees from Time Warner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o OPLIN lines paid directly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Extra telecom lines from libraries budget&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Erate&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Donated cable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Scalable&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Yes, ask OPLIN who askes State IT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Do a load survey to see&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State IT notifies if there’s a problem&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Ethernet in Worthington&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN negotiated the contract&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• AT&amp;T paid to bring the line across public road&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library paid from road to library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Everybody trying to move to fiber because T-1s are too expensive&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt;Internet connectivity – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;Internal operations – describe uses&lt;br/&gt;ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• ILS – 70% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Public internet – 80% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Social networking&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless – one libraries shuts it off at night so public can’t use from parking lot BUT extending to nearby parks during the day&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff resources to central databases, 15% in one library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Large emails – remote from home for public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote access in general&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High definition resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Audio and visual downloads&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• &lt;strong&gt;People come to the library to learn how to do this and then go home and do it but while they are learning they do it at the library&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• E-book download&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Basic tech training for users&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Productivity suites&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Download more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Music&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Videos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• VOIP in more rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More digital collections&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gaming&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Interavtive web site with a community bulletin board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• More workstations&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Web casts – story times&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Wireless access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Voicera – Star trek communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patron generated ILL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Remote connectivity – can’t get into library catalog&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow and dropped access to web&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Staff access to resources&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Segregate lines ½ staff and 2/3 public&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee only for phones&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Gurantee ILS over everything else&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vacera – badge communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Guarantee wireless&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Inconsistency in vendor market – service is bad – can’t keep track of IP addresses, slow response&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Price, what can you afford. Compare price and found 50 megs was only a little more than 10 megs in cost.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• What’s available in the community? Industry availability in rural area, Most users to not have BB access. Build a highway in community and supposed to be stringing fiber with it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Monitor bandwidth to determine use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tech plans every 3 years so plan then for new technology and branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trend analysis&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract for shorter terms with clauses for scalability at a certain price&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ILS talk to each other and patron generated ILL, enough bandwidth for this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• How much? - depends on the library and &lt;strong&gt;how long the community stays rural&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• As much bandwidth for staff and public to do what they want and need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library service 24-7&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library set the standards for public internet access (restaurants, etc. have to live up to library reputation)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Proactive with new technology and new content – movies, games, without worrying about bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Advocating for industry standards so don’t have to teach different technologies to public and staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Work with feds to discover resources – e government&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $$ State funding has been static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Local competition with police and fire for $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Geography&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vendor choice – lack of competition&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Infrastructure plan&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o State and local orgs, companies don’t talk about their plans. Law if unintended consequences. Need more coordination&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o No collaboration in place to make decisions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Need to communicate about their plans&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lack of cooperation in planning&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Local staffing and technology expertise&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Voting public doesn’t understand new role of libraries Need for technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Technical expertise for configuration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Understanding of the public about the role of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?&lt;br/&gt;Who applies for the E-rate funds?&lt;br/&gt;How does CIPA impact?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• CIPA – all filter but one&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filter at different levels controlled by parental approval and bar code&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Apply?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o POTS&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Telecom if not by OPLIN&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Problems?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Forms “Biggest bureaucracy in the whole world”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o 2-3 months full time for staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Difficult to contract in their time frame&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Rules and regulations keep changing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vendor doesn’t send the $$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Long drawn out process&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BUT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Worth a lot of money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
• Own staff&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Paid consultant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OPLIN and OPLINTech list serv&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Trade and professional literature, share information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Contract with regional cooperatives&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• WebJunction and other online resurces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• University colleagues&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State direct for sudden and drastic problems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Make a deal with industry to offer long term service at good rates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Pressure on Hollywood etc to offer more&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Alternate sources of bandwidth such as over electric lines. Plug into electric outlet to get bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Provide line directly in certain rural areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test MS products first. Get systems stable and backward compliant&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Test software –special grants to make sure new computers can run new software&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Value of OPLIN? What makes it a success?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Stable and funded&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Listens to individual libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Adds to services and improves services, not static&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances needs of large metro and small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Balances politics&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works with OLC (professional public library association) to get needs to General Assembly&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works closely with state network&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Communicates well and facilitates communication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Brought email to libraries in the state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lot of networks –have trouble working together. Afraid there is duplication&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Maintain identify and communicate well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Works well with state library to do training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
“Ohio is a library rich state and a lot of library organizations are looking at their missions and how to improve services. All libraries and library organizations are having trouble trying not to duplicate efforts and working together. Adding to this is the fact that libraries are not expecting each organization to do specific or certain things for them.<br />
Many libraries are having trouble maintaining their identify and communicating well and are pulled in too many different directions”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Greg Byerly===<br />
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;See also interviews with OPLIN pioneers and Dave Miller&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
How it all started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Article in library hi tech in 1996. Vol 14, issues 2-3, 1996.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Similar document for OhioLink and InfoLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
All three networks started with OCLC. OCLC was to do two things, mechanize production of catalog cards and a realtime circ system for Ohio universities. State of Ohio gave money to start.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
1988, Bd of Regents looking at requests to build buildings. Regents said no more money to build more libraries because everything would be electronic. So university libraries upset so came up with regional storage facilities in 1986. Asked for money for storage facilities. Asked for money for a network to have an online integrated circulation system for all universities $2.1 million.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Grey was at Kent state and started NOTICE. Dean of libraries at Kent and Ohio State were on the commission to start OhioLink. Greg kept giving ideas and he got invited to go to a meeting with the regents. Wanted OhioLink in 9-12 months. Greg asked to start it up in two years. Loaned from Kent State to OhioLink.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Organized process to get everyone involved. 16 universities plus 2 private universities. Key getting 3 people from every university on a task force or committee. Huge RFP with vendors demonstrating what they could do.. 150 people at vendor presentations. Got all these people to participate. Miracles don’t happen if try and do quickly. Need to take time to get people to agree. Need smaller universities and large university to get on the same system. Originally 18 libraries had 13 different systems. Get everybody involved so that when a decision had to be made, they were all in agreement. Joined III. First big customer of III.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio in 1987-88 had gotten its first supercomputer. Telecom networks between all universities. Original OhioLink Board had two people, one from OARnet and one from state IT. Everybody wins if everybody gets bigger computers. Everything came together at the right time. System became the backbone of the internet. It became technologically possible to link everybody together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Public libraries didn’t have a clue. Bd. of Regents was afraid that the public libraries would steal their thunder and do something. Greg had loyalties to both public and academic. Told public libraries and they didn’t seem to care. 1985 was when they got a lot of money in change of state aid. Big tension between 7 major metros and rural. Everyone was trying to stake their claim. Public libraries were happy because they had a lot of money. In 1991 didn’t see a need to combine resource into a network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
InforOhio – In 1989, even before III contract. School libraries in NE Ohio wanted to start an OhioLink for the schools. Greg felt schools couldn’t do it because too many and not connected. BUT…&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ohio Educational Computer Network. Already linked all the schools over a separate state network. Had nothing to do with libraries. Allowed communication over state lines but only to the schools. Public libraries and academic libraries received big infusions of money from the state level to do this. Schools have never had this infusion of money. InfoOhio had its first libraries online in 1991. Greg did a bid process for school libraries. 23 regional computer sites. Schools connect to one of the regional sites and then to OECN and to each other. Now called ITCs or Instructional Technology Center. These are run locally with a board of local superintendents. Buy software programs for school lunch, bus schedules. School libraries also connected. About half of the Superintendents or on the Board. Some of the ITCs get cheaper rates for databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Fran Haley came to Ohio to head OLC. 1994 called Greg. Knew about OhioLink. Asked why there is no OhioLink for public libraries. Fran and OLC hired Greg in 1994 to develop the 1994 plan. That paper asked for 5 million dollars over two years to get this done. Governor gave them 4.6million. Announced in state of the budget. Legislators called and asked, if you get an extra $8 million can you do it all? They said yes. This was the beginning of funding for OPLIN.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Greg said had to get on state network. Fran said, why aren’t they? Greg said, they had never asked. Asked to get on and did. Had to get in early so considered as the network expanded. Met with Tim Steiner and other in state network. If had money behind it, then his duty as a state network to serve public libraries. He does lottery, highway patrol, everything expanding rapidly. Public libraries were the slowest to get involved. By waiting it became more possible for disparate for libraries to talk to each other. OhioLink everybody had to be on the same system. By the time public libraries joined, that was no longer necessary.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Over 2400 school libraries all use Sirsi/Dynix. InfoOhio is Sirsi/Dynix largest customer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Tom Sanville, director of OhioLink. One of the fiercest persons to get statewide contracts for databases. First was Proquest in 1996.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Libraries Connect has the State Library, OPLIN, OhioLink, and InfoOhio working together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN got EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
InfoOhio got small subset of Proquest.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Finally got together to do one state wide bid for general publications which was EBSCO.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cooperate for database contracts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Make a lot of sense in theory to be one network but where they have to work together they work together very well. Mike Lucas called these meetings for them to meet and talk about common issues.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg lobbied for Lib Connect Plus. Several times a year this group expands to include the 3 professional associations and library school.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
SchoolRoom – online portal for elementary schools. Federated search. Looks at school libs, public libs, databases, and best websites chosen by teachers, and google sites.<br />
Sirsi-Dynis. Rooms. Have room for different searches.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Feels 3 networks work. Libraries Connect does what’s necessary for cooperation. Each network has its own funding stream. Each runs on its own subset of state system. Academic use I2.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
OPLIN established by OLC. State Library was not at all interested in OPLIN. Participated in OhioLInk so didn’t care. High contention between Cheski and OPLIN. Day OPLIN got funded, Cheski retired. Set OPLIN separate so was not part of State Library. Now?? State Library tried once to get OPLIN. No reason OPLIN couldn’t function with state library. But why rock the boat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
OPLIN works best on state network. Push state to get better rates. With a new governor who is doing Broadband Initiative. Cooperation is good. Don’t think can get a better contract that state can.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Success factors:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Participation getting everyone involved, no surprises, here is what we are planning, get involved&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Well connected, respected leaders in an advisory council&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two trustees, library directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Working librarians who actually know and do something&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Task force on administration, money, procedures, policies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Two people from board as chairs and task forces do work&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Committees under task forces&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Get directors to let staff come&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Had regional meetings. Handed out draft of document. Get seven metro libraries to buy in. Cleveland send top tech people to serve so other big metros asked to have their people on it as well&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Organization that goes behind it led by someone neutral – Greg and Fran&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Someone that goes to all the meetings and takes notes and puts it all together.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC paid them a little money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vision to do this and ignoring any perceived barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Blasted through barriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Acknowledge barriers and then overcome them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Could be done now. Public librarians are bummed because not getting an increase.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State Libraries efforts to do resource sharing. MORE – Moving Online Resources Everywhere. LSTA gave 11 million to schools to automate school libraries. Maybe state library should now spend money another way.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Replicate in other states what has happened in Ohio and Missouri&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Send people to meetings&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Neutral people&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Frustration with Gates.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Spends money on Smaller Learning Communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Divide big school into small school&lt;br/&gt;<br />
These people know nothing about school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates doesn’t see value of school libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Interview with Dave Miller===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Chairman of the...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Dave came in after the librarians got the ball rolling.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Greg Byerly really got it started.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ohio Library Council (OLC) got behind the idea and it became a reality.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was president of OLC. Not involved in working with Greg. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Dave was in Columbus for something else. Got a call from OLC asking if he would call state representative to lobby for more funding from general assembly for operational spending for public libraries. Went to a pay phone to call the state representative sponsoring the bill.. His was the 8th call for same thing. Many librarians had already called. Randy Gardner is now a state senator. He said he agreed but was cutting funding percentage. It was a good year for one time funding. Governor had already put in a budget request for 4.5 million for OPLIN but would not bring it inside libraries. Most of big libraries has the money to bring it inside. Many of the small ones could not afford it. Standing in a wet phone booth, Miller asked for state to provide the money to bring OPLIN inside the library and internet work stations for the public. How much?<br />
Dave came up with $5 million. 250 library districts at the time times about $10,000 per library. Passed the house. Senate approved $10 million. Settled on $ 8 million.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Helped to get all the libraries involved. Also gave Tony Yankus the resources to pay for training services for the library. In Governor’s 4.5 million didn’t provide for any training. Bought computers, routhers, training, databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Miller is now chair of state library board. He moved to that after he was chair of OLC Board.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
His role with OPLIN now is to support the use of LSTA funds to supplement databases. <br />
They will have a retreat next week. Get newsbank. OPLIN, Ohio-Link, and Info Ohio work together to get databases.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The State Library approves OPLIN board member but based on their recommendations. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
Come close to bringing OPLIN into the state library. For various reasons their board said no. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Advantage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Line item under state library budget but not part of state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Provide services for them&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HR services&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Bookkeeping, Diane Fink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Monitors their books&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Technical report due and state library IT people do the report&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General assembly approves OPLIN budget through state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Protection not as strong&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Disadvantages&lt;br/&gt;<br />
OPLIN doesn’t have 100% trust in state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State Library Bd blocked two OPLIN Board members to be OPLIN Directors&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When OPLIN got funded, Dick wanted it to be part of the state library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Factors that lead to success&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Tony Yankus was the right person for the job&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Tony and Grey Byerly can see things others can’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Vision of how it can all come together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Laid firm foundation then the challenge was gone for Tony&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC coming into its own. Created OLC from OLA and OLTA.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Academics pulled out into their own organization and formed OhioLink&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Had the right energy&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Did some things the state library might do but didn’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o &lt;strong&gt;If OLC said something was good, they would believe it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Flip flop between prof and trustee as president of OLC (used to 10 years ago, still?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Very active professional librarians on the board&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• OLC sold people on the concept.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
o Lot of credibility&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• With funding, didn’t take long to get down to medium-sized and small libraries. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• High energy,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• People satisfied with progress, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Easy to use&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Vigorous training&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Everything worked the way it should&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Lots of people enthusiastic about sharing information&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Saw how internet could be a partner to their own libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Voinevietch deserves a lot of credit for his willing to fund the vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Should networks merge? Would have some administrative cost savings. They are getting there through cooperation on databases. Some public libraries are joining OhioLink. General Assembly would love to see them merge. School libraries not well funded. InfoOhio is weaker. There are now 3 executive directors: OPOIN, OhioLink, InfoOhio. Through attrition might be able to work all of this out. Not want to invest a lot of time championing but the General Assembly could force it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Turf issues. Asked for plus and minus of merger. All minuses.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Use LSTA funds for databases. State Library continues to provide support additional.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Gates&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Implement the OPLIN model. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could happen in any state&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do you have the commitment of the GA or Governor?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Do what Voinovich did. Get BB to doors of libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Use model of Ohio and Missouri with other state GA and Governor.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==John==<br />
==Mark==<br />
==Networks Morning Focus Group==<br />
<br />
As part of the morning focus groups, Stephen Hedges of OPLIN, Shawn Walsh of the Northeast Ohio Regional Library System and Glen Horton of the Southwest Ohio Neighboring Libraries. Here are my notes.<br />
<br />
The session’s notes are augmented with a separate group of notes from a meeting with the OPLIN staff.<br />
<br />
*History<br />
**State put out bid for postalized rates to connect everyone, which resulted in the SOMACS contract<br />
**This put in place a standard $450 per month per T1 line for government<br />
**Public libraries were able to buy into the contract<br />
***To get the state to pay for it, they emphasized the need for equity of access<br />
***So they set up OPLIN<br />
**All T1s in the state go back to Columbus to be connected to the Internet by the Ohio Office for IT<br />
*OARNET<br />
***The state-wide network for higher ed<br />
***Connects 90 colleges and universities<br />
**Originally purchased off of SOMACS contract<br />
**Have gone through a network re-design<br />
***Build a new network w/ 1600 miles of fiber<br />
***Connects Higher Ed, K12 and public television<br />
***Several backbone rings throughout the state<br />
***Would like to continue to link entities<br />
*OPLIN<br />
**Manages the contracts for the public libraries<br />
**only drives out connectivity to the main branch of a public library—does not connect all of the branch ibrary<br />
***Libraries can buy into the state contract to get the postalized rate to connect branches<br />
***If the branch libraries connect to OPLIN via the T1+ back to Columbus, OPLIN pays for Internet Connectivity at the State IT OFfice<br />
**Manages the customer service to libraries<br />
**Funding comes from state appropriation and from E-Rate<br />
**Clevenet<br />
***The libraries around Cleveland all share a ILS<br />
***Built own regional network<br />
***To save money, OPLIN funds T1s from Cleveland to libraries and then a DS3 to Columbus<br />
**What OPLIN does well<br />
***Bought quality routers<br />
***Networking consulting for internal wiring<br />
***Support center at the state level<br />
****Goes beyond authority to provide all types of support for libraries, as is requested<br />
**Challenges of OPLIN<br />
***Subscription database authentication<br />
***Network level cache servers<br />
***Anticipation increase in demand because of VOIP and Video<br />
***Getting enough training to public libraries<br />
***Viruses, adware and spyware eating up bandwidth<br />
***Bottleneck @ last mile<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Approx 50% of libraries are CIPA compliant<br />
**But they apply for telecomm charges to pay for the T1<br />
**Does not receive E-Rate to pay OIT to pay for access to the commodity Internet<br />
*Governance<br />
**Has a governing board that serves OPLIN from an advisory perspective instead of a governance modle<br />
**OPLIN reports to the state library office, where the appropriation is made to <br />
*Office for IT<br />
**Manages the last mile<br />
**Manages the network end to end<br />
**Allocates the amount of bandwidth that is needed to connect entities.<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**State funding to libraries (in OH 80-85% is from state gov’t)<br />
**Have a friendly face for customers<br />
***Someone to talk non-techie to the community<br />
**Putting computers out there and providing training<br />
**Statewide service system<br />
**Find a lot of users<br />
*challenges<br />
**No unified vision to put new backbone in place<br />
***Current model was sufficient 10 years ago, but does not scale well<br />
**Getting content out to libraries<br />
***Difficulty with streaming video taking up the bandwidth<br />
**Getting fiber out to the libraries<br />
**Adding a caching server (they indicated a difficulty in getting one installed and working properly)<br />
*Determining bandwidth<br />
**Old policy was everyone gets a T1<br />
**New policy of .01 Mbps per public workstation + .015 per staff workstation<br />
***Does not think this will scale well in the future<br />
*Driving Force<br />
**Equity of access<br />
**Ohio Library council (the state public library professional association<br />
*Services from OPLIN<br />
**Circuit charges<br />
**Databases<br />
**Manages routers and the routes out to the Ohio IT Office<br />
**Customer Service<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Training by State Library<br />
*Regional Library Consortiums Provide:<br />
**Web hosting<br />
**E-Mail<br />
**Traning<br />
**Some technical support<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Working with decision makers<br />
**# of computers is limited<br />
**E-Government<br />
**Trained Staff<br />
*Gates interventions<br />
**Take over technical operations<br />
**Having connectivy and using it are 2 different things<br />
**Recommends funding webhosting <br />
**Grants to figure out how to use the connection<br />
**Education to librarians<br />
**Sell Equity of Access<br />
**Encourage state funding<br />
***Lobbying<br />
***Everyone loves libraries<br />
**Funding for wireless Equipment<br />
**Putting together a support structure<br />
<br />
<br />
==Dan Farslow, E-Rate Guru==<br />
<br />
*Dan is an advocate for usage of E-Rate by public libraries and public schools<br />
**Bristles with lots of energy<br />
**Thinks it is their duty to apply for E-Rate to take advantage of all of the funding that is available to them<br />
*Works for the State Ed. Department<br />
**Contracts w/ state library to provide E-Rate training<br />
*Has been working with library to help them fill out the E-Rate application and has been steadily increasing the flow of E-Rate money to libraries<br />
<br />
==Terry Fredrickat from InfOhio==<br />
<br />
*InfOhio is a statewide consortium of K12 libraries<br />
*They provide state-wide subscriptions to various databases, even in kids home<br />
*K12 uses 3rd Frontier (the new state higher-ed backbone)<br />
**Connects via 13 regional consortiums<br />
<br />
==Anthony Yankes==<br />
<br />
*Has an idea on how to connect entities together by building a fiber ring around the town square<br />
*they would then connect via the Third Frontier backbone<br />
**Would like to place local government players, libraries, schools, higher ed, private entities and residents on this backbone via <br />
**<br />
*Gates Interventions<br />
**Biggest impact @ the lowest cost<br />
**Educate the policy makers <br />
***Governor, Chief Justice, Speaker of the house, Senate President, State Budget Director would be highest priority for training<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Greg Byerly===<br />
I talkd about your broadband deployment in Ohio question with Roger Verny, Deputy Ohio State Librarian, and we discusse how just as OPLIN was based on equity of access, broadband availability also needs to be based on equity of access. The underserved areas need access to resources that developed areas do. The way you get to resources today is through broadband access. The Gates Foundation needs to lend not only its money but its political cache in reducing the digital divide. They need to be the Champion.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Michigan_State_Visit_Data&diff=2552Michigan State Visit Data2007-04-01T22:21:42Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Follow up==<br />
<br />
===Don Wood @ MERIT===<br />
I think it has been a long process for Michigan. I think there are a number of factors. The staff has to be good. Learning how to build and operate fiber is not easy. There is lots of local learning (people, procedures, etc) involved in building fiber. Then having a quality outreach staff that is trusted by the community is key. We have asked our community to trust us as we helped put consortiums and partnerships together. I guess it is that we in all aspects of life - get the right people together and turn them loose!<br />
<br />
===Sheryl Mase @ Michigan Library===<br />
I would say public demand for resources that use ever increasing bandwidth and forward thinking librarian response to this demand.<br />
<br />
If you meant how did we achieve the deployment, I would say through the library cooperatives and the Library of Michigan and Merit.<br />
<br />
==Michigan Focus Group Session==<br />
===Version: March 20, 2007 - Notes from Bob Bocher&lt;br/&gt;===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Martha Pitchford, Lakeland Library Cooperative: Some issue RFP because of E-rate. Have 6-8 phone companies to deal with. Cooperative serves 1.2 million population. Annual ISP costs is $276,000, which member libraries pay.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Lise Mitchell, Chippewa River District Library: E-rate is critical to connectivity. Have four phone companies. Pay twice for circuit when it is handed off between AT&amp;T and Verizon. Often takes 6 months to get added bandwidth. When AT&amp;T split a circuit and some is now provided by Verizon, our cost doubled.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
James Seidl, Woodlands Library Cooperative: Have 36 libraries in the cooperative and all connect independently from each other. No cooperative WAN. Some use DSL, Cable, dedicated circuit. Speeds from 768K to 3MB. Costs are “All over the board.” Some have MERIT; one library connects via their MAN; one library (with its branches) needs to work with four different telcos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Roger Mendel, Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative: Decentralized connectivity, like Woodland. Some use their local telco. One library does wireless via Vonnage. Cooperative does some E-rate follow-up to ensure libraries complete their forms.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Suzanne Dees, Superiorland Library Cooperative: Have 63 libraries. It’s a 7 hour drive from one end of the cooperative’s service area to the other. Use interactive video for communication; cooperative with Regional Educational Media Center (REMC, their K-12 regional cooperative.) Have Sirsi/Dynix. Their libraries use five different ISPs. Twelve libraries on MERIT. Some have just 256K and three libraries are at 3MB. One library uses wireless provided by Charter, their local cable company. Also have a telemed network. Very dependent on E-rate. Libraries pay $5,370-$8650 annually for connectivity (pre-discount), excluding MERIT frame-relay circuit fee. $108,000 total annual cost. Bottom line: “Our connectivity allows us to do what we need to do vs. what we want to do.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Andrea Michelini, The Library Network (TLN): Have 58 libraries in five counties in the SE part of state. TLN serves 30% of state’s population. Well connected: 42 libraries have T1, 3 have 3MB, 13 have fiber. Have been laying down fiber since May 2006 for head end and 13 sites. (Lease fiber, AT&amp;T owns it.) This WAN is used for Net access and for shared ILS (Sirsi/Dynix) by 55 libraries. TLN is a member of MERIT and AT&amp;T is underlying carrier. Most MERIT costs paid by individual libraries. All libraries have E-rate on the circuit but not Net access because most do not filter. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt; <br />
2a) Internet connectivity – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2b) Internal operations – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2c) ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2a: All the “usual stuff” like email, surfing the Web, etc. Seeing more access to videos, gaming, and electronic books (e.g., OverDrive). Libraries must address the changing nature of the Internet, and respond as needed to changing patron demands on what they access. Some cooperatives host their member libraries’ Websites.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2b: Almost all facets of library work, including backend processes like book ordering, are dependent on the Internet. &lt;em&gt;“Our staff try and get their work done by 3pm because after that response time drops to zero.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Network technician was certain a hacker was causing our bandwidth problems. Turns out it was just “normal” library traffic.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
2c: Jim: Have ILS (Autographics) outsourced in California. When patron’s download videos, ILS response time suffers and sometimes fails (i.e., times out). New Gates PCs have fostered amazing use but there is no bandwidth. About three cooperatives have shared ILS. Where there is a shared ILS, there is more help on technical issues from the cooperative. Cooperatives send tech help if they run a shared ILS. Central ordering of parts, etc. Keep all hardware (e.g., routers) homogeneous.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• VPN; remote network and router diagnostics and PC management (push out service pack upgrades, etc.); staff email; MySpace; gaming; wireless access for patrons; distance education (interactive video); VoIP &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Our server was hacked and used to house Japanese pornography. Staff not versed on security issues. Small libraries do not have trained staff. Cannot expect the library director to do this!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Some services can only be used at home because of library bandwidth issues. This is very frustrating.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Use packet shaping tools (e.g., Packeter) and caching to address bandwidth issues.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Let the ISP address bandwidth. They deal with the phone company to get us more bandwidth. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies do not care or are unresponsive to our needs. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow access makes patrons stay at the PC longer increasing lines and frustration from patrons waiting for access. Some patrons complain that other patrons are just using the Internet for frivolous reasons, like gaming. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Can have best bandwidth in the world, but the wiring in your building has to be good all the way down to the PC. Infrastructure in old buildings – cat 5 – is now old and the $$$ to change wiring, switches, routers all need to be replaced. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Insufficient bandwidth is determined by the number of irritated patrons&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Any more than a 10 second wait is too long&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The definition of sufficient bandwidth: “When you click, it happens.” &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• There are so many factors in this puzzle: ILS, LAN, patron use, problems “down the line, etc. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filtering can add to overhead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Just general patron and staff frustration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Adequate fiber throughout the state &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons being allowed to do what they want to do&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons coming in or using from home and being happy with what they get (and telling legislators!)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• UP – five ISPs – main are Merit and Charter. They won’t talk to each other! The library is trying to get them to work together so the data does not have to go to the Chicago NAP and back. (At Friday mtg, MERIT said they are working on this.) Competition is not necessarily good for cooperation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7) What are barriers is getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• State failed to take a statewide role in this. In mid-90s governor did not view a state network as a function of government. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State economy is in bad shape, libraries facing major budget reductions. Libraries have lost millages and had to close branches, etc. State wants to cut state aid to public libraries (and cooperatives) by 50%. People have lost jobs and are looking to move out of state. Need infrastructure for high tech jobs. Manufacturing is gone. Michigan Works! Offices are sending folks to libraries but not paying anything to support this. Libraries are very willing to collaborate, but others do not seem to reciprocate &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Libraries at the mercy of the local phone companies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• E-rate does not allow us to pull our own fiber. Must lease this, which is not a good long-term situation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Michigan – grass roots state – local control – would not have wanted a statewide network in years past. Slow to get the schools to understand how the Internet would be a good thing. Separate cultures not used to cooperating. Privitization may not be working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8a) Who applies for the E-rate funds? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8b) How does CIPA impact? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Only 7 of our 34 libraries file (for POTs). Too much paper work and follow-up work for smaller libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Getting $300-400 is not worth the effort&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some don’t want to filter&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost as most important factor works against MERIT as ISP and some libraries have had to select different ISP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Always having open 2-3 years worth of applications and forms. This is very confusing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to lease fiber, but sometimes its better to own it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies not cooperative &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library pays $1,000 to a third party to file E-rate paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ISPs not required to offer E-rate discounts, and some don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The accumulation of paperwork and length of time from paperwork to discounts is troubling &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• MERIT does a good job on bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Most ISPs fairly good at tracking bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• No real state-level help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library cooperatives with WANs offer some level of help to their member libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
• Develop or provide bandwidth tools, circuit testing, etc.; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Develop standards and benchmarks on connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds for planning statewide cooperation &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Model after a state that is doing it well. Parties involved – not used to working together. Maybe we need to do just libraries. County commissioners not re-elected go away, new ones don’t have the same priorities. Term limits cause the legislature to turn over and there is a constant re-training effort (sigh). Schools march to a different drummer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds to provide shared, sustained technical expertise. Someone who can come to our library to help. Cannot expect library director in a small library to have this level of technical expertise. Need more than WebJunction &lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Address huge difference in knowledge between sizes of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Address issue of libraries needing to deal with telco providers &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Meeting Notes==<br />
&lt;u&gt;2/15/07 - Thursday morning:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Meeting with Nancy Robertson, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sheryl Mase, E-rate coordinator and Director of Statewide Services, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Randy Dykhuis, Michigan Library Consortium&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries in Michigan are not centralized – some have strong regional cooperatives (13 of them), some have no cooperative or partnership at all. Some libraries run by the county, some city, some local community.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to establish a statewide library network several years ago – never happened; instead focused on e-rate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
7 of the library coops are members of MERIT, the university-state-run backbone network. Each coop makes its own telecom plans.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Library Network (TLN – Eastern Michigan) and Lakeland are largest library coops – often aggregate demand. TLN serves 58 libraries, 30% of state, were able to pool money to pay AT&amp;T to build fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Upper Peninsula (UP) is surprisingly well-connected, largely due to the organizational efforts of Suzanne Dees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Library Consortium (MLC) formed 30 years ago to create content for Michigan libraries, such as on-line catalogue system (OCLC), MelCAT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan’s strategy was to focus on buying content and then hope the connectivity would follow. However, they now would like to buy databases with videos but does not think there is enough connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former Governor reluctant to build statewide library network, concerned about competing with private sector – preferred to give incentives to carriers to build the network, resulted in patchwork of regional networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Today Michigan faces severe budget constraints, little money to create a statewide network, even if it wanted to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many pockets of Michigan have no BB – outside of Ann Arbor, Big Rapids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greatest Barriers to BB?: &lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. technical expertise in libraries is lacking, this need is sometimes filled by the regional coops&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. financial – no funds to expand bb capacity, e-rate has helped, but more is needed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Focus Group&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The UP depends on one pipe into and out of the region – carries all banking, telephone calls, as well as libraries’ traffic. Some traffic has to be routed out of Michigan through Chicago.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries BB was adequate until video – class lectures, videoconferencing, distance learning – exhausted all capacity quickly. Staff can only do Internet work until 2 p.m. until students arrive. NYPublic Library has wonderful historical videos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Rural libraries don’t have the staff or technical options to put in their own VPNs or packet shaping technologies or security. Regional Library consortiums at least put in technicians and can provide remote management to help libraries. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Is there a problem with the middle mile, or only the last mile? Regional consortiums often use the ISP to negotiate middle mile solutions with carriers. ISP can negotiate better because they aggregate demand and can talk technical needs with carriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In rural areas, there may not be any middle mile and no ISP – may only have a direct local connection from library to backbone. Very expensive because of the distance. Postalized rates help, but may not be available depending on contract with local carrier.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many libraries have been holding back on wireless because bringing more laptops into the libraries creates even more congestion on the network. Traveling salesmen often use libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Georgia has “evergreen Automation – cheap ILS system (?)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries really need a “Geek Squad” to help them put together and manage BB network. Libraries could really use a technology advocate, someone who knows how to work with the technical people at the carriers to make sure the needs are met.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates did it right with computers – sent a technician along with the computers to help install and set it up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates funded NPower – did not take off. Circuit Rider would be a better middle step (this is not the ultimate solution, but it would help)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NOTE: Texas set aside $80,000 (?) of LSTA money to create a technical assistance staff to work with the libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Michigan E-Library (MeL): Susan Davidsen, MeL Coordinator&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is a wonderful content portal for Michigan students and patrons. Has links to several on-line databases for free. Has excellent video lectures on health and wellness, legal information (court decisions), tutoring and educational videos. Many other databases and information. Very well-organized and useful. But this means even more demand and more BB is necessary to make use of it. Would like to subscribe to more video and audio services, but without sufficient broadband, the investment in subscriptions would be underutilized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anyone with a valid Michigan driver’s license is eligible to sign on. Library can sign on automatically (no password) with a static IP address. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Lunch with Dave Vehslage – Verizon:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon serves many rural areas of Michigan – left over from GTE acquisition. Michigan passed a deregulation bill in 2005 and a video franchise bill in 2006. Verizon is not seeking legislation in 2007 – nothing particular on its agenda. Verizon prefers that state government not seek to promote greater broadband initiatives. The market is working and will meet the demand if it is there. Many areas have BB available but do not know it or are not using it. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Michigan Broadband Development authority has been a failure. It has authorized loans for BB where BB is already available, instead of focusing on unserved areas. It has written off $14 million of the $50 million loan it received from the Housing Dept. (from hiring staff and consultants and other overhead). BB Dev’t Authority has not been re-authorized and will go out of business this summer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon is not a part of the telephone association in Michigan. Disagreement over universal service is one reason.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3/15/07 Meeting w/ Lynne Draschil&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynne works for the Department of Information Technology (DIT) within the state. She is responsible for external relations with counties and munincipalities, application development.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is successful for connecting because the state is proactive in working with providers and working to increase coverage, libraries are successful because of collaboration with state libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;3/16/07 - Friday morning meeting with&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
George Boersma, Director of Department of Information Technology (DIT)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Coffiann Hawthorne, Deputy Legal Counsel and Policy Advisor to Michigan Governor Granholm&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Monica Martinez, PUC Commissioner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kim Fedewa, Michigan Economic Development Corporation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
DIT works with local government and universities to move the Governor’s agenda forward on BB (and health care and other technology-based issues)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Focus on wireless – works with cities to implement municipal wi-fi networks, also looking at using MDOT (Dept. of Transportation) towers for BB and cellular antennas. Is conducting a survey of communities to determine underserved areas, and working with Development Authority.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC – not much cost-based regulation left after legislation 2 years ago removed much of its ratemaking authority or oversight because of competition; retains oversight of interconnection issues (CLEC-ILEC) and customer disclosure; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC has been looking at helping 2 new BB over power line (BPL) applicants seeking RUS funding. NARUC BPL task force issued study on the issue. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC also notes that ALLBAND, a rural ILEC, is deploying fiber to the Home with RUS funding. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video franchise act passed last year with many of the same provisions as in California. AT&amp;T has been delayed in getting of the mark with video deployment in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cofiann Hawthorne – advisor to governor, liaison between Governor and state agencies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Main focus is on bridging the digital gap, especially in 8 cities with highest poverty rates, also focused on workforce development and opening libraries to help citizens have BB access and apply for jobs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
[following comments are made by different participants at the meeting]:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looking very closely at Kentucky – admires its “feet to the ground” approach<br />
Bulk of Michigan homes can receive BB (AT&amp;T 75%, cable 90%, Verizon only 35%)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demand may not always be there to support BB investment. Many consumers feel that gas for their snowblowers is more important than BB connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Oakland County – one of 3d richest in the country – does not have BB in some places, is putting in its own wireless BB network. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gov. also announced BB goal of 2007 (same as Pres. Bush)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BB Dev. Authority has used all its money, AT&amp;T/Verizon not as interested in the program&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act in 2002 helped to streamline process for using rights-of-way; created standard rate for compensating cities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In general, policy has shifted away from promoting competition to promoting BB build-out in unserved areas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is setting up “local collaboration groups” (?) to work with communities to get feet on the ground&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anybody in Michigan can receive BB from satellite – a little more expensive, but it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MIDEAL – state contracts for services from carriers, muni governments can purchase access to state services through the LinkMichigan contract. State network is with AT&amp;T, cities can choose to use state network or use it as leverage to negotiate a better rate from carriers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Biggest Barriers to BB deployment?:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. education – many consumers don’t understand the need for BB or the value of it, or don’t know that it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
more and more carriers are choosing wireless as the least costly BB technology.<br />
<br />
Leadership comes from the Governor, who sets the agenda aligns the agencies priorities with hers. The governor has several agendas “Cities of Promise”-getting industrial cities onto the new economy.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries fit into many of these agendas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*In one city of promise, they are trying to re-open a closed library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Realizes they are a place to provide education&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan success factors include for broadband includes the hands-off approach the government has taken, bundling helping to lower prices (cost effective to add on broadband) and the evolution of technology to lower the cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Views barriers as customers not knowing what can be done w/ broadband, so not much demand out there. The other major barrier to broadband is money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks they have been successful at broadband deployment, but difficult to gauge success. They think the government does a good job of promoting broadband through the broadband development authority (and the tax credit to telcos in exchange for them not shutting down the BDA)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
B&amp;M Gates Interventions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Get as big of a pipe as possible &lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Show the value of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
**get people in to use the pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Upgrades in computers and hardware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Education of librarians and patrons in broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Increase space in libraries for computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Challenges to more deployment includes multiple service providers, low ROI in some areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks Gates foundation could encourage the service providers could deploy; thinks there is a way to incentivize the deployment (not sure what form this incentive would come in), and help with up-front costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Chris Horak – Michigan Cable &amp; Telecom Assn.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is deploying BB to 91% of homes at 5 – 10 Mbps speeds<br />
58% of homes can get telephone service over their cable systems. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sometimes cable companies provide free cable drops or cable modem drops into schools or libraries. Cable is likely to continue these connections voluntarily once the new video franchise law takes effect – good advertising.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The old days of asking for free service from the cable companies as a condition of franchise agreements have ended. Now policy-makers need to be more creative.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the time, cities’ entry into the telecom business is unwise. Cities forget the annual costs of running and maintaining a network, have limited expertise when the system goes down. The private carriers are much better at this. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t authority fell flat, lost $14.5 M, will lose $1 million more, in staff expenses. Also, the need was not there. Most loans were given in Lansing, Grand Rapids, other areas where 2 or 3 BB providers already existed. The market is working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act has worked (standardized rights-of-way). Each city was charging different amounts for rights-of-way usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is not pursuing any legislative agenda right now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes best way is to bring all providers in together to work out solutions, perhaps using successful library consortiums to explain to rural libraries how to aggregate traffic.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Scott Stevenson - Telecommunications Association of Michigan<br />
Jon Peterson, AT&amp;T Michigan<br />
Donna Burke, AT&amp;T Michigan&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
TAM represents 36 of 38 telephone companies in Michigan (not Verizon)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes most companies are deploying BB, some to 100% of consumers. Demand is driving deployment, and companies are meeting that demand.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is as competitive as any state in the country. Cites Air Advantage and WildBlue as competitive wireless BB providers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
There is no one policy change that has made a difference. Michigan has adopted a number of measures in the last few years that collectively improve the chances for investment in Michigan:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Telecom Act – which reduced regulatory oversight by PUC&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video Franchise Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tax policy change – replaced an antiquated value-added tax with a depreciation table that saves the company substantial funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demise of UNEP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
AT&amp;T is steadily increasing its BB deployment because of these measures.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some cities are building their own networks, competing with AT&amp;T.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State government should take a “stakeholder” approach – don’t tell the industry what to do, need to engage industry in a dialogue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t Authority created a huge scandal, a good example of what NOT to do.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom Association would be happy to engage in more dialogue with the libraries, suggested participating at each other’s conferences.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Key Recommendations:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. promote greater conversation, can help libraries identify their needs and help industry meet those needs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. libraries should have a technology plan, AT&amp;T is not willing to throw money at a problem until the library has a plan to use it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3. provide an unbiased consultant to help libraries understand its needs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Elaine Logan ==<br />
<br />
Elaine is the chair of the Library of Michigan Board of Trustees. By default she has had the longest running trustee. She is a special library background. Works for Phizer for 15 years, UM Dearborn and GM Lawyers.<br />
<br />
*Thinks that this type of research is critical for the <br />
*The disperate ways that libraries are funded make it less efficient and effective for them to get good connectivity<br />
*Are trustees knowledgeable?<br />
**Intellectually they know of the connectivity study, but there is not guarantee that they fully understand the problem<br />
**Not at the forefront of the legislature advocates minds<br />
**Works through the Governor and the Director of the HAL agency<br />
**Go to public hearings<br />
*Background on the board of trustees<br />
**We try and mix the board to have representation from all sorts of libraries (public, academic, special and school), legislator members and geographic represenations<br />
**State library focuses on public libraries and school (but academics and special still wants to partner)<br />
**Advisory board to state librarian and the director of HAL (state librarian). Does not supervise activities. Helps do reviews and select candidates.<br />
***Advise and investigate issues that are critical to the state libraries<br />
***But do not get into day to day management<br />
***Make proclamations and publish position statements, etc.<br />
**Appointed by governor<br />
**Does not have a mix of rural libraries, etc.<br />
**Primarily discusses libraries issues in general<br />
*How successful are the libraries are deployment?<br />
**Spotty and room for improvement (did not examine b4 call and asked us about focus group<br />
*How does the board assist?<br />
**Advises state lib on administering Gates and LSTA Grant<br />
**Provided resources once they get connected<br />
**Focus on getting content; not equipment and connections<br />
*How much priority do you place on broadband? Do you have a policy statement? Philosophy?<br />
**This would be possible, but given latest round of budget craziness (libraries recently experienced a 50% reduction<br />
**Gov. Granholm has a priority to build an educated workforce. <br />
**Connectivity to public libraries could be a part of Granholm’s plan<br />
*Do legislatures on library board have library background?<br />
**Most recent appointees are best that we have as far as getting them to be an advocate<br />
**In the past they have helped advocate and sponsor some activities<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Should be some great collaborative environment for public libraries where they can plug in at a low rate<br />
**Ways to tap into I2 and other networks for a faster speed<br />
<br />
==MERIT==<br />
*Background<br />
**501(c)3 organization<br />
**serves bandwidth to the research and education community<br />
**Orginally formed to hook-up mainframes at the big 3 universities (Michigan State, Wayne State and U. of Michigan)<br />
**Managed the backbone for NSFNET<br />
**Connects various entities<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
***Libraries<br />
***Government<br />
***Hospitals<br />
**Participates in advanced router research<br />
**Has an emphasis on providing quality connectivity<br />
**Better @ doing their job than a standard ISP<br />
**No mandate to connect anyone<br />
**State of Michigan had a pot of money in early 90s and were wondering how to connect entities to the Internet<br />
***So they funded MERIT to put in dial-up modem access in several communities<br />
***Eventually, the need increased, so they began deploying broadband to entities<br />
***Usage of MERIT by institutions began to decline in late 90s early ‘00s<br />
****MERIT was expensive and they could get it cheaper elsewhere<br />
*Technology<br />
**Leases backbone<br />
**Connects people to backbone via circuits provided by Telcos or deploys their own fiber<br />
**Beginning to run a facilities-based service<br />
***Lease a facility and wires for 20 years w/ infinite right to use (that is a contract negotiation whereby they can use the fiber even if the original entity is sold)<br />
***Co-builds some facilities w/ others<br />
***Has also begun stringing their own fiber<br />
**Does not allow members to connect via cable companies<br />
***MERIT would like to maintain end to end control of the network, but cable companies will not allow them<br />
***However, they do lease some fiber from Charter (a cable company in Michigan)<br />
*Has an emphasis to build a community between K12 and libraries<br />
*Fiber<br />
**If entities build and own their own fiber, then they cannot get E-Rate<br />
**So MERIT will build it and lease it to them for 3-5 years to recover costs<br />
***Then there is only a maintenance fee for the entity to own the fiber<br />
**Also connects entities via Opti-man From AT&amp;T<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service<br />
**Grants for research<br />
**Owned by 12 public universities in Michigan<br />
**1 time cost to get connected<br />
***Partners with organization to determine service level and then they make it happen<br />
**Entity must pay for telco circuit (but MERIT has negotiated the rates and helps maintain)<br />
**After an entity exceed 7.5 Mbps, they look to deploy fiber b/c it costs about the same as a T3<br />
**Has levels of services provided by AT&amp;T<br />
**1-2-3 Net, a CLEC, undercuts AT&amp;T so they use them to connect<br />
*Services<br />
**Entities can have a full Class ‘C’ subnet<br />
**Educational meetings<br />
**Internet (both commodity and I2)<br />
***However, no libraries are connected to I2 yet<br />
***Working to bring them online once they have sufficient bandwidth<br />
**Peers w/ 12 other networks to reduce costs<br />
**E-Mail (for fee)<br />
**DNS<br />
**SPAM and anti-virus (for fee)<br />
**Video conferencing (for fee)<br />
**Security consulting<br />
**NOC Services (management of packets from end to end)<br />
*Governance<br />
**12 public universities that own MERIT form a board of directors<br />
**Advisory council of affiliate members <br />
***Affiliate members are any entity that is connected but is not one of the 12 public universities<br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Best when libraries and other entities can pool their services<br />
**Fiber is best connection method (no incremental telecom cost to make it go faster &amp; it pays for itself within 2-3 years)<br />
**Bringing stakeholders together to collaborate<br />
**Thinks that it is important to build tomorrow’s network today instead of today’s network<br />
**For MERIT, it is no longer about the network;<br />
***They have a stronger emphasis on community, delivery of quality services and looking to figure out ways to increase tests scores in schools<br />
**Community is Key<br />
**Looks to remove bandwidth problem from their connected entities<br />
*What about telcos?<br />
**MERIT provides better service<br />
**Emphasizes the public good in having technology in education<br />
**According to telcos, bandwidth is bandwidth<br />
***But is important to consider what it is that you are getting when you buy bandwidth<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Outreach and explaining the value of MERIT<br />
**Financially-trying to keep costs low and quality high<br />
**Strategic decisions on where to invest (E.g. made a large investment in UP that has paid off but sacrificed a higher ROI elsewhere)<br />
**No Fiber deployment everywhere they would like to go<br />
**Dealing w/ power companies to ensure access to the right aways<br />
***Michigan law helps b/c if they don’t make the way available in time, they can hire someone to move the lines on the poles to make way for their wires<br />
*Bandwidth allocation<br />
**Run utilization graphs to determine when customers need to upgrade<br />
***Talkes with members to determine what their future needs will be<br />
**Help gague bandwidth needs based upon needs of organizations when they connect them<br />
*barriers to Entry on MERIT<br />
**Fixed costs<br />
**MERIT helps with transition<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Influence regulators and pay funds to allow libraries to own their own connections<br />
**States w/out a non-profit ISP like MERIT needs one<br />
**Distribution of IT<br />
***Help assess where broadband is<br />
**Build tomorrows network today—no point in having to re-build in a few years</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Michigan_State_Visit_Data&diff=2551Michigan State Visit Data2007-04-01T22:17:46Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Follow up==<br />
<br />
===Don Wood @ MERIT===<br />
I think it has been a long process for Michigan. I think there are a number of factors. The staff has to be good. Learning how to build and operate fiber is not easy. There is lots of local learning (people, procedures, etc) involved in building fiber. Then having a quality outreach staff that is trusted by the community is key. We have asked our community to trust us as we helped put consortiums and partnerships together. I guess it is that we in all aspects of life - get the right people together and turn them loose!<br />
<br />
===Sheryl Mase @ Michigan Library===<br />
I would say public demand for resources that use ever increasing bandwidth and forward thinking librarian response to this demand.<br />
<br />
If you meant how did we achieve the deployment, I would say through the library cooperatives and the Library of Michigan and Merit.<br />
<br />
==Michigan Focus Group Session==<br />
===Version: March 20, 2007 - Notes from Bob Bocher&lt;br/&gt;===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Martha Pitchford, Lakeland Library Cooperative: Some issue RFP because of E-rate. Have 6-8 phone companies to deal with. Cooperative serves 1.2 million population. Annual ISP costs is $276,000, which member libraries pay.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Lise Mitchell, Chippewa River District Library: E-rate is critical to connectivity. Have four phone companies. Pay twice for circuit when it is handed off between AT&amp;T and Verizon. Often takes 6 months to get added bandwidth. When AT&amp;T split a circuit and some is now provided by Verizon, our cost doubled.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
James Seidl, Woodlands Library Cooperative: Have 36 libraries in the cooperative and all connect independently from each other. No cooperative WAN. Some use DSL, Cable, dedicated circuit. Speeds from 768K to 3MB. Costs are “All over the board.” Some have MERIT; one library connects via their MAN; one library (with its branches) needs to work with four different telcos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Roger Mendel, Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative: Decentralized connectivity, like Woodland. Some use their local telco. One library does wireless via Vonnage. Cooperative does some E-rate follow-up to ensure libraries complete their forms.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Suzanne Dees, Superiorland Library Cooperative: Have 63 libraries. It’s a 7 hour drive from one end of the cooperative’s service area to the other. Use interactive video for communication; cooperative with Regional Educational Media Center (REMC, their K-12 regional cooperative.) Have Sirsi/Dynix. Their libraries use five different ISPs. Twelve libraries on MERIT. Some have just 256K and three libraries are at 3MB. One library uses wireless provided by Charter, their local cable company. Also have a telemed network. Very dependent on E-rate. Libraries pay $5,370-$8650 annually for connectivity (pre-discount), excluding MERIT frame-relay circuit fee. $108,000 total annual cost. Bottom line: “Our connectivity allows us to do what we need to do vs. what we want to do.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Andrea Michelini, The Library Network (TLN): Have 58 libraries in five counties in the SE part of state. TLN serves 30% of state’s population. Well connected: 42 libraries have T1, 3 have 3MB, 13 have fiber. Have been laying down fiber since May 2006 for head end and 13 sites. (Lease fiber, AT&amp;T owns it.) This WAN is used for Net access and for shared ILS (Sirsi/Dynix) by 55 libraries. TLN is a member of MERIT and AT&amp;T is underlying carrier. Most MERIT costs paid by individual libraries. All libraries have E-rate on the circuit but not Net access because most do not filter. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt; <br />
2a) Internet connectivity – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2b) Internal operations – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2c) ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2a: All the “usual stuff” like email, surfing the Web, etc. Seeing more access to videos, gaming, and electronic books (e.g., OverDrive). Libraries must address the changing nature of the Internet, and respond as needed to changing patron demands on what they access. Some cooperatives host their member libraries’ Websites.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2b: Almost all facets of library work, including backend processes like book ordering, are dependent on the Internet. &lt;em&gt;“Our staff try and get their work done by 3pm because after that response time drops to zero.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Network technician was certain a hacker was causing our bandwidth problems. Turns out it was just “normal” library traffic.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
2c: Jim: Have ILS (Autographics) outsourced in California. When patron’s download videos, ILS response time suffers and sometimes fails (i.e., times out). New Gates PCs have fostered amazing use but there is no bandwidth. About three cooperatives have shared ILS. Where there is a shared ILS, there is more help on technical issues from the cooperative. Cooperatives send tech help if they run a shared ILS. Central ordering of parts, etc. Keep all hardware (e.g., routers) homogeneous.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• VPN; remote network and router diagnostics and PC management (push out service pack upgrades, etc.); staff email; MySpace; gaming; wireless access for patrons; distance education (interactive video); VoIP &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Our server was hacked and used to house Japanese pornography. Staff not versed on security issues. Small libraries do not have trained staff. Cannot expect the library director to do this!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Some services can only be used at home because of library bandwidth issues. This is very frustrating.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Use packet shaping tools (e.g., Packeter) and caching to address bandwidth issues.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Let the ISP address bandwidth. They deal with the phone company to get us more bandwidth. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies do not care or are unresponsive to our needs. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow access makes patrons stay at the PC longer increasing lines and frustration from patrons waiting for access. Some patrons complain that other patrons are just using the Internet for frivolous reasons, like gaming. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Can have best bandwidth in the world, but the wiring in your building has to be good all the way down to the PC. Infrastructure in old buildings – cat 5 – is now old and the $$$ to change wiring, switches, routers all need to be replaced. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Insufficient bandwidth is determined by the number of irritated patrons&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Any more than a 10 second wait is too long&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The definition of sufficient bandwidth: “When you click, it happens.” &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• There are so many factors in this puzzle: ILS, LAN, patron use, problems “down the line, etc. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filtering can add to overhead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Just general patron and staff frustration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Adequate fiber throughout the state &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons being allowed to do what they want to do&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons coming in or using from home and being happy with what they get (and telling legislators!)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• UP – five ISPs – main are Merit and Charter. They won’t talk to each other! The library is trying to get them to work together so the data does not have to go to the Chicago NAP and back. (At Friday mtg, MERIT said they are working on this.) Competition is not necessarily good for cooperation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7) What are barriers is getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• State failed to take a statewide role in this. In mid-90s governor did not view a state network as a function of government. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State economy is in bad shape, libraries facing major budget reductions. Libraries have lost millages and had to close branches, etc. State wants to cut state aid to public libraries (and cooperatives) by 50%. People have lost jobs and are looking to move out of state. Need infrastructure for high tech jobs. Manufacturing is gone. Michigan Works! Offices are sending folks to libraries but not paying anything to support this. Libraries are very willing to collaborate, but others do not seem to reciprocate &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Libraries at the mercy of the local phone companies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• E-rate does not allow us to pull our own fiber. Must lease this, which is not a good long-term situation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Michigan – grass roots state – local control – would not have wanted a statewide network in years past. Slow to get the schools to understand how the Internet would be a good thing. Separate cultures not used to cooperating. Privitization may not be working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8a) Who applies for the E-rate funds? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8b) How does CIPA impact? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Only 7 of our 34 libraries file (for POTs). Too much paper work and follow-up work for smaller libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Getting $300-400 is not worth the effort&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some don’t want to filter&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost as most important factor works against MERIT as ISP and some libraries have had to select different ISP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Always having open 2-3 years worth of applications and forms. This is very confusing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to lease fiber, but sometimes its better to own it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies not cooperative &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library pays $1,000 to a third party to file E-rate paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ISPs not required to offer E-rate discounts, and some don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The accumulation of paperwork and length of time from paperwork to discounts is troubling &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• MERIT does a good job on bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Most ISPs fairly good at tracking bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• No real state-level help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library cooperatives with WANs offer some level of help to their member libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
• Develop or provide bandwidth tools, circuit testing, etc.; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Develop standards and benchmarks on connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds for planning statewide cooperation &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Model after a state that is doing it well. Parties involved – not used to working together. Maybe we need to do just libraries. County commissioners not re-elected go away, new ones don’t have the same priorities. Term limits cause the legislature to turn over and there is a constant re-training effort (sigh). Schools march to a different drummer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds to provide shared, sustained technical expertise. Someone who can come to our library to help. Cannot expect library director in a small library to have this level of technical expertise. Need more than WebJunction &lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Address huge difference in knowledge between sizes of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Address issue of libraries needing to deal with telco providers &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Meeting Notes==<br />
&lt;u&gt;2/15/07 - Thursday morning:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Meeting with Nancy Robertson, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sheryl Mase, E-rate coordinator and Director of Statewide Services, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Randy Dykhuis, Michigan Library Consortium&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries in Michigan are not centralized – some have strong regional cooperatives (13 of them), some have no cooperative or partnership at all. Some libraries run by the county, some city, some local community.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to establish a statewide library network several years ago – never happened; instead focused on e-rate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
7 of the library coops are members of MERIT, the university-state-run backbone network. Each coop makes its own telecom plans.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Library Network (TLN – Eastern Michigan) and Lakeland are largest library coops – often aggregate demand. TLN serves 58 libraries, 30% of state, were able to pool money to pay AT&amp;T to build fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Upper Peninsula (UP) is surprisingly well-connected, largely due to the organizational efforts of Suzanne Dees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Library Consortium (MLC) formed 30 years ago to create content for Michigan libraries, such as on-line catalogue system (OCLC), MelCAT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan’s strategy was to focus on buying content and then hope the connectivity would follow. However, they now would like to buy databases with videos but does not think there is enough connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former Governor reluctant to build statewide library network, concerned about competing with private sector – preferred to give incentives to carriers to build the network, resulted in patchwork of regional networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Today Michigan faces severe budget constraints, little money to create a statewide network, even if it wanted to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many pockets of Michigan have no BB – outside of Ann Arbor, Big Rapids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greatest Barriers to BB?: &lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. technical expertise in libraries is lacking, this need is sometimes filled by the regional coops&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. financial – no funds to expand bb capacity, e-rate has helped, but more is needed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Focus Group&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The UP depends on one pipe into and out of the region – carries all banking, telephone calls, as well as libraries’ traffic. Some traffic has to be routed out of Michigan through Chicago.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries BB was adequate until video – class lectures, videoconferencing, distance learning – exhausted all capacity quickly. Staff can only do Internet work until 2 p.m. until students arrive. NYPublic Library has wonderful historical videos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Rural libraries don’t have the staff or technical options to put in their own VPNs or packet shaping technologies or security. Regional Library consortiums at least put in technicians and can provide remote management to help libraries. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Is there a problem with the middle mile, or only the last mile? Regional consortiums often use the ISP to negotiate middle mile solutions with carriers. ISP can negotiate better because they aggregate demand and can talk technical needs with carriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In rural areas, there may not be any middle mile and no ISP – may only have a direct local connection from library to backbone. Very expensive because of the distance. Postalized rates help, but may not be available depending on contract with local carrier.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many libraries have been holding back on wireless because bringing more laptops into the libraries creates even more congestion on the network. Traveling salesmen often use libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Georgia has “evergreen Automation – cheap ILS system (?)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries really need a “Geek Squad” to help them put together and manage BB network. Libraries could really use a technology advocate, someone who knows how to work with the technical people at the carriers to make sure the needs are met.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates did it right with computers – sent a technician along with the computers to help install and set it up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates funded NPower – did not take off. Circuit Rider would be a better middle step (this is not the ultimate solution, but it would help)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NOTE: Texas set aside $80,000 (?) of LSTA money to create a technical assistance staff to work with the libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Michigan E-Library (MeL): Susan Davidsen, MeL Coordinator&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is a wonderful content portal for Michigan students and patrons. Has links to several on-line databases for free. Has excellent video lectures on health and wellness, legal information (court decisions), tutoring and educational videos. Many other databases and information. Very well-organized and useful. But this means even more demand and more BB is necessary to make use of it. Would like to subscribe to more video and audio services, but without sufficient broadband, the investment in subscriptions would be underutilized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anyone with a valid Michigan driver’s license is eligible to sign on. Library can sign on automatically (no password) with a static IP address. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Lunch with Dave Vehslage – Verizon:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon serves many rural areas of Michigan – left over from GTE acquisition. Michigan passed a deregulation bill in 2005 and a video franchise bill in 2006. Verizon is not seeking legislation in 2007 – nothing particular on its agenda. Verizon prefers that state government not seek to promote greater broadband initiatives. The market is working and will meet the demand if it is there. Many areas have BB available but do not know it or are not using it. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Michigan Broadband Development authority has been a failure. It has authorized loans for BB where BB is already available, instead of focusing on unserved areas. It has written off $14 million of the $50 million loan it received from the Housing Dept. (from hiring staff and consultants and other overhead). BB Dev’t Authority has not been re-authorized and will go out of business this summer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon is not a part of the telephone association in Michigan. Disagreement over universal service is one reason.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3/15/07 Meeting w/ Lynne Draschil&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynne works for the Department of Information Technology (DIT) within the state. She is responsible for external relations with counties and munincipalities, application development.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is successful for connecting because the state is proactive in working with providers and working to increase coverage, libraries are successful because of collaboration with state libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;3/16/07 - Friday morning meeting with&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
George Boersma, Director of Department of Information Technology (DIT)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Coffiann Hawthorne, Deputy Legal Counsel and Policy Advisor to Michigan Governor Granholm&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Monica Martinez, PUC Commissioner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kim Fedewa, Michigan Economic Development Corporation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
DIT works with local government and universities to move the Governor’s agenda forward on BB (and health care and other technology-based issues)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Focus on wireless – works with cities to implement municipal wi-fi networks, also looking at using MDOT (Dept. of Transportation) towers for BB and cellular antennas. Is conducting a survey of communities to determine underserved areas, and working with Development Authority.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC – not much cost-based regulation left after legislation 2 years ago removed much of its ratemaking authority or oversight because of competition; retains oversight of interconnection issues (CLEC-ILEC) and customer disclosure; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC has been looking at helping 2 new BB over power line (BPL) applicants seeking RUS funding. NARUC BPL task force issued study on the issue. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC also notes that ALLBAND, a rural ILEC, is deploying fiber to the Home with RUS funding. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video franchise act passed last year with many of the same provisions as in California. AT&amp;T has been delayed in getting of the mark with video deployment in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cofiann Hawthorne – advisor to governor, liaison between Governor and state agencies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Main focus is on bridging the digital gap, especially in 8 cities with highest poverty rates, also focused on workforce development and opening libraries to help citizens have BB access and apply for jobs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
[following comments are made by different participants at the meeting]:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looking very closely at Kentucky – admires its “feet to the ground” approach<br />
Bulk of Michigan homes can receive BB (AT&amp;T 75%, cable 90%, Verizon only 35%)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demand may not always be there to support BB investment. Many consumers feel that gas for their snowblowers is more important than BB connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Oakland County – one of 3d richest in the country – does not have BB in some places, is putting in its own wireless BB network. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gov. also announced BB goal of 2007 (same as Pres. Bush)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BB Dev. Authority has used all its money, AT&amp;T/Verizon not as interested in the program&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act in 2002 helped to streamline process for using rights-of-way; created standard rate for compensating cities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In general, policy has shifted away from promoting competition to promoting BB build-out in unserved areas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is setting up “local collaboration groups” (?) to work with communities to get feet on the ground&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anybody in Michigan can receive BB from satellite – a little more expensive, but it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MIDEAL – state contracts for services from carriers, muni governments can purchase access to state services through the LinkMichigan contract. State network is with AT&amp;T, cities can choose to use state network or use it as leverage to negotiate a better rate from carriers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Biggest Barriers to BB deployment?:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. education – many consumers don’t understand the need for BB or the value of it, or don’t know that it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
more and more carriers are choosing wireless as the least costly BB technology.<br />
<br />
Leadership comes from the Governor, who sets the agenda aligns the agencies priorities with hers. The governor has several agendas “Cities of Promise”-getting industrial cities onto the new economy.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries fit into many of these agendas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*In one city of promise, they are trying to re-open a closed library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Realizes they are a place to provide education&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan success factors include for broadband includes the hands-off approach the government has taken, bundling helping to lower prices (cost effective to add on broadband) and the evolution of technology to lower the cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Views barriers as customers not knowing what can be done w/ broadband, so not much demand out there. The other major barrier to broadband is money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks they have been successful at broadband deployment, but difficult to gauge success. They think the government does a good job of promoting broadband through the broadband development authority (and the tax credit to telcos in exchange for them not shutting down the BDA)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
B&amp;M Gates Interventions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Get as big of a pipe as possible &lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Show the value of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
**get people in to use the pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Upgrades in computers and hardware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Education of librarians and patrons in broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Increase space in libraries for computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Challenges to more deployment includes multiple service providers, low ROI in some areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks Gates foundation could encourage the service providers could deploy; thinks there is a way to incentivize the deployment (not sure what form this incentive would come in), and help with up-front costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Chris Horak – Michigan Cable &amp; Telecom Assn.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is deploying BB to 91% of homes at 5 – 10 Mbps speeds<br />
58% of homes can get telephone service over their cable systems. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sometimes cable companies provide free cable drops or cable modem drops into schools or libraries. Cable is likely to continue these connections voluntarily once the new video franchise law takes effect – good advertising.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The old days of asking for free service from the cable companies as a condition of franchise agreements have ended. Now policy-makers need to be more creative.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the time, cities’ entry into the telecom business is unwise. Cities forget the annual costs of running and maintaining a network, have limited expertise when the system goes down. The private carriers are much better at this. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t authority fell flat, lost $14.5 M, will lose $1 million more, in staff expenses. Also, the need was not there. Most loans were given in Lansing, Grand Rapids, other areas where 2 or 3 BB providers already existed. The market is working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act has worked (standardized rights-of-way). Each city was charging different amounts for rights-of-way usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is not pursuing any legislative agenda right now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes best way is to bring all providers in together to work out solutions, perhaps using successful library consortiums to explain to rural libraries how to aggregate traffic.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Scott Stevenson - Telecommunications Association of Michigan<br />
Jon Peterson, AT&amp;T Michigan<br />
Donna Burke, AT&amp;T Michigan&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
TAM represents 36 of 38 telephone companies in Michigan (not Verizon)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes most companies are deploying BB, some to 100% of consumers. Demand is driving deployment, and companies are meeting that demand.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is as competitive as any state in the country. Cites Air Advantage and WildBlue as competitive wireless BB providers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
There is no one policy change that has made a difference. Michigan has adopted a number of measures in the last few years that collectively improve the chances for investment in Michigan:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Telecom Act – which reduced regulatory oversight by PUC&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video Franchise Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tax policy change – replaced an antiquated value-added tax with a depreciation table that saves the company substantial funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demise of UNEP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
AT&amp;T is steadily increasing its BB deployment because of these measures.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some cities are building their own networks, competing with AT&amp;T.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State government should take a “stakeholder” approach – don’t tell the industry what to do, need to engage industry in a dialogue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t Authority created a huge scandal, a good example of what NOT to do.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom Association would be happy to engage in more dialogue with the libraries, suggested participating at each other’s conferences.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Key Recommendations:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. promote greater conversation, can help libraries identify their needs and help industry meet those needs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. libraries should have a technology plan, AT&amp;T is not willing to throw money at a problem until the library has a plan to use it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3. provide an unbiased consultant to help libraries understand its needs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Elaine Logan ==<br />
<br />
Elaine is the chair of the Library of Michigan Board of Trustees. By default she has had the longest running trustee. She is a special library background. Works for Phizer for 15 years, UM Dearborn and GM Lawyers.<br />
<br />
*Thinks that this type of research is critical for the <br />
*The disperate ways that libraries are funded make it less efficient and effective for them to get good connectivity<br />
*Are trustees knowledgeable?<br />
**Intellectually they know of the connectivity study, but there is not guarantee that they fully understand the problem<br />
**Not at the forefront of the legislature advocates minds<br />
**Works through the Governor and the Director of the HAL agency<br />
**Go to public hearings<br />
*Background on the board of trustees<br />
**We try and mix the board to have representation from all sorts of libraries (public, academic, special and school), legislator members and geographic represenations<br />
**State library focuses on public libraries and school (but academics and special still wants to partner)<br />
**Advisory board to state librarian and the director of HAL (state librarian). Does not supervise activities. Helps do reviews and select candidates.<br />
***Advise and investigate issues that are critical to the state libraries<br />
***But do not get into day to day management<br />
***Make proclamations and publish position statements, etc.<br />
**Appointed by governor<br />
**Does not have a mix of rural libraries, etc.<br />
**Primarily discusses libraries issues in general<br />
*How successful are the libraries are deployment?<br />
**Spotty and room for improvement (did not examine b4 call and asked us about focus group<br />
*How does the board assist?<br />
**Advises state lib on administering Gates and LSTA Grant<br />
**Provided resources once they get connected<br />
**Focus on getting content; not equipment and connections<br />
*How much priority do you place on broadband? Do you have a policy statement? Philosophy?<br />
**This would be possible, but given latest round of budget craziness (libraries recently experienced a 50% reduction<br />
**Gov. Granholm has a priority to build an educated workforce. <br />
**Connectivity to public libraries could be a part of Granholm’s plan<br />
*Do legislatures on library board have library background?<br />
**Most recent appointees are best that we have as far as getting them to be an advocate<br />
**In the past they have helped advocate and sponsor some activities<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Should be some great collaborative environment for public libraries where they can plug in at a low rate<br />
**Ways to tap into I2 and other networks for a faster speed<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**501(c)3 organization<br />
**serves bandwidth to the research and education community<br />
**Orginally formed to hook-up mainframes at the big 3 universities (Michigan State, Wayne State and U. of Michigan)<br />
**Managed the backbone for NSFNET<br />
**Connects various entities<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
***Libraries<br />
***Government<br />
***Hospitals<br />
**Participates in advanced router research<br />
**Has an emphasis on providing quality connectivity<br />
**Better @ doing their job than a standard ISP<br />
**No mandate to connect anyone<br />
**State of Michigan had a pot of money in early 90s and were wondering how to connect entities to the Internet<br />
***So they funded MERIT to put in dial-up modem access in several communities<br />
***Eventually, the need increased, so they began deploying broadband to entities<br />
***Usage of MERIT by institutions began to decline in late 90s early ‘00s<br />
****MERIT was expensive and they could get it cheaper elsewhere<br />
*Technology<br />
**Leases backbone<br />
**Connects people to backbone via circuits provided by Telcos or deploys their own fiber<br />
**Beginning to run a facilities-based service<br />
***Lease a facility and wires for 20 years w/ infinite right to use (that is a contract negotiation whereby they can use the fiber even if the original entity is sold)<br />
***Co-builds some facilities w/ others<br />
***Has also begun stringing their own fiber<br />
**Does not allow members to connect via cable companies<br />
***MERIT would like to maintain end to end control of the network, but cable companies will not allow them<br />
***However, they do lease some fiber from Charter (a cable company in Michigan)<br />
*Has an emphasis to build a community between K12 and libraries<br />
*Fiber<br />
**If entities build and own their own fiber, then they cannot get E-Rate<br />
**So MERIT will build it and lease it to them for 3-5 years to recover costs<br />
***Then there is only a maintenance fee for the entity to own the fiber<br />
**Also connects entities via Opti-man From AT&amp;T<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service<br />
**Grants for research<br />
**Owned by 12 public universities in Michigan<br />
**1 time cost to get connected<br />
***Partners with organization to determine service level and then they make it happen<br />
**Entity must pay for telco circuit (but MERIT has negotiated the rates and helps maintain)<br />
**After an entity exceed 7.5 Mbps, they look to deploy fiber b/c it costs about the same as a T3<br />
**Has levels of services provided by AT&amp;T<br />
**1-2-3 Net, a CLEC, undercuts AT&amp;T so they use them to connect<br />
*Services<br />
**Entities can have a full Class ‘C’ subnet<br />
**Educational meetings<br />
**Internet (both commodity and I2)<br />
***However, no libraries are connected to I2 yet<br />
***Working to bring them online once they have sufficient bandwidth<br />
**Peers w/ 12 other networks to reduce costs<br />
**E-Mail (for fee)<br />
**DNS<br />
**SPAM and anti-virus (for fee)<br />
**Video conferencing (for fee)<br />
**Security consulting<br />
**NOC Services (management of packets from end to end)<br />
*Governance<br />
**12 public universities that own MERIT form a board of directors<br />
**Advisory council of affiliate members <br />
***Affiliate members are any entity that is connected but is not one of the 12 public universities<br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Best when libraries and other entities can pool their services<br />
**Fiber is best connection method (no incremental telecom cost to make it go faster &amp; it pays for itself within 2-3 years)<br />
**Bringing stakeholders together to collaborate<br />
**Thinks that it is important to build tomorrow’s network today instead of today’s network<br />
**For MERIT, it is no longer about the network;<br />
***They have a stronger emphasis on community, delivery of quality services and looking to figure out ways to increase tests scores in schools<br />
**Community is Key<br />
**Looks to remove bandwidth problem from their connected entities<br />
*What about telcos?<br />
**MERIT provides better service<br />
**Emphasizes the public good in having technology in education<br />
**According to telcos, bandwidth is bandwidth<br />
***But is important to consider what it is that you are getting when you buy bandwidth<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Outreach and explaining the value of MERIT<br />
**Financially-trying to keep costs low and quality high<br />
**Strategic decisions on where to invest (E.g. made a large investment in UP that has paid off but sacrificed a higher ROI elsewhere)<br />
**No Fiber deployment everywhere they would like to go<br />
**Dealing w/ power companies to ensure access to the right aways<br />
***Michigan law helps b/c if they don’t make the way available in time, they can hire someone to move the lines on the poles to make way for their wires<br />
*Bandwidth allocation<br />
**Run utilization graphs to determine when customers need to upgrade<br />
***Talkes with members to determine what their future needs will be<br />
**Help gague bandwidth needs based upon needs of organizations when they connect them<br />
*barriers to Entry on MERIT<br />
**Fixed costs<br />
**MERIT helps with transition<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Influence regulators and pay funds to allow libraries to own their own connections<br />
**States w/out a non-profit ISP like MERIT needs one<br />
**Distribution of IT<br />
***Help assess where broadband is<br />
**Build tomorrows network today—no point in having to re-build in a few years</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2550Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T21:29:35Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Syringa Networks==<br />
<br />
*About<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==David O’Neill==<br />
<br />
David is the Executive Director of the Office of Information Technology at Boise State University. Been in Techie business in the last 25 years, but has moved up in the ranks.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**CTO of the University<br />
**Responsibility for all technologies on campus<br />
**Oversees several units including mail room, presses, traditional IT systems, student labs, help desk, database administrators, system administrators, telecom (VOIP, video and data); not an I2 school<br />
**Collaborating w/ other institutions in the state and Idaho National Lab to build a research network to make it a backbone for the state<br />
***Would like it to be a collaboration between a lot of entities (libs, state agencies, higher ed (4 year schools), etc.)<br />
***Has created a draft architecture, including a Gigapop<br />
**Partnered with the University of Idaho<br />
**Wants to have a Idaho Gigapop that will be used by all the universities in Idaho (labs cover ½ of the $1,000,000 expense. Trying to raise the other ½). The gigapop will be in Boise along I-84 where I2, Level3 and NLR run fiber along<br />
**Wants to connect libraries throughout the state<br />
**Lots of Unlit fiber<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Poor<br />
**No success rate in broadband deployment and has sat on boards w/ other agencies and they can’t get past the definition of broadband<br />
**Access to the Internet<br />
***But it is dependent on the context and where it is available<br />
**Believes that connection speed is contextual<br />
*Barriers<br />
**It is not architected with the small communities in mind<br />
**There is no planned out state architecture—needs someone to bring people together and plan<br />
*Success<br />
**Individual initiative has led to deployment<br />
**They pride themselves in entrepreneurial in nature<br />
**They went out, formed a plan and deployed<br />
**Limited success and great failures<br />
***Lack of planning led to failure---trying to sell services not possible<br />
***Exclusion to key players<br />
*Where do libraries fall?<br />
**Partners and contributors<br />
**Few can take the lead much beyond their own play box<br />
**Great visibility—can show great return<br />
**But have not been considered very much<br />
***Rarely have they been at the table<br />
**Believes that the number of patrons match or exceed the usage at the public libraries<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Come up with a good plan that represents all of the major players<br />
***What is the vision? What is the plan?<br />
***lots of people w/ vision, but needs to become a documented in a workable plan to bring together these plans<br />
**Provide seed money</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2549Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T20:22:46Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs<br />
<br />
==Syringa Networks==<br />
<br />
*About<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2548Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T19:33:33Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity<br />
<br />
==Department of Administration==<br />
<br />
Keith is the director of the department of administration. He is the chairmen of the technology council. Basically, he is the state CIO (ITMRC is reportable to him). Has a relationship with many telecommunications companies. Keith was the elected state controller and just started as the director of the admin. <br />
<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Within metro areas it’s pretty good<br />
**In rural areas, it has quite a way to go (it’s a challenge to get them into their communities)<br />
*Factors of Success<br />
**Motivation and market demand<br />
***Economic development associated with broadband<br />
**Legislature sees the need to improve access<br />
**Telcos that is responsible wants to do it, but it must be economically viable<br />
**Strong High-tech component in Idaho to drive innovation<br />
**Well-trained workforce to deploy these resources<br />
*Barriers <br />
**Geographic<br />
***Mountains<br />
***Large state<br />
****Many miles between citites<br />
***Makes it difficult to get technology in place<br />
**Lots of small communities<br />
**Easy to deploy in flat areas, but difficult in others<br />
*Success<br />
**Scale of 1-10 5 or 7<br />
*Vision<br />
**Not been a strong cohesive strategy @ the state level<br />
**Multiple and competing visions <br />
***Those w/ vision need to work together <br />
***Going to require state Government (through the governor) to bring competing interests together<br />
****Military, state agencies<br />
***Governor has an indirect approach…concerned and has other people looking into it<br />
****To drive education and economic development<br />
*What steps has government taken?<br />
**Former Governor created a couple of councils to meet and tasked with the mission<br />
***Wants to elevate the position of these councils b/c they have been buried far down into<br />
**ITRMC wants to be increase their influence and have federated CIO<br />
*Previous programs<br />
**Tax incentives and matching grants need to be addressed on a case by case basis<br />
**Sees some matching grants coming up in the future<br />
*Where do libraries fit in?<br />
**They are a critical component of a consumer’s access to information<br />
**Government is not a replacement to what private sector can do<br />
**Thinks people will be reluctant to go to library (compares it to public transportation)<br />
**Libraries may be a place<br />
**Certain demand out there for libraries, but demand comes in personal access to information<br />
**Would not be underutilized at the library<br />
*IDANET<br />
**Has the potential of being a large player<br />
**Lack of coordinated effort by the agency levels to maximize the potential<br />
**Needs to make choices as to how we will allocate resources<br />
**Department of Administration negotiates the contracts and billing<br />
*ITD Network<br />
**Some talks with the merging of the two merger<br />
***Wants to push for the discussion of the Issue<br />
*ITMRC<br />
**Technically responsible for setting standards<br />
**Operating in a decentralized stove piped fashion<br />
**That means they are not taking adv. Of enterprise IT planning and resources<br />
**Individual email servers (80) duplicated throughout the agencies<br />
***Getting agencies to understand how they can save money is a political reason<br />
*B &amp; M Gates interventions<br />
**Enormous amount of credibility associated w/ Bill Gates<br />
***Well received in Idaho<br />
***Would like recommendations on how other states are getting stuff done<br />
***Would recommend input<br />
**Level of education that needs to take place inside and outside of government<br />
***Positive and negative benefits of broadband<br />
**Continue to work w/ councils and policy makers on deployment<br />
***All competing for $$$ to provide capacity<br />
***Anything we can do to increase resources<br />
**Grants and Incentives Programs</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2547Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T18:28:08Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium==<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2546Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T18:26:34Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)<br />
<br />
==Buhl Public Library &amp; WELCom Consortium=<br />
<br />
*Cynthia Toppen<br />
**Contacted because they are part of a consortia<br />
**The consortia is 2 public libraries and school districts<br />
***4000 in Buhl; 1200 In Filer<br />
**Susie is the technical advisor<br />
*Welcom Consortia<br />
**They share information &amp; resources<br />
**They share<br />
***Print resources<br />
***ILS &amp; OPAC<br />
***Information<br />
***Technically support each other and their knowledge of technology<br />
*E-Rate<br />
**Is not on E-Rate<br />
**Hassle factor..not sure if hassle exceeds the benefits<br />
**CIPA is not a factor---they filter anyway b/c of unruly people (ability to take it off for over 18)<br />
**This type of consortium is not typical <br />
***Thinks there may be one up north<br />
*Connectivity<br />
**Provided by CableOne they get 5 Mbps for Buhl<br />
**Filer goes through the telcos<br />
***Does not get billed for upgraded service (static IP)<br />
**Technical person does not have time to get stuff done (also children’s librarian and cataloger)<br />
**Originally wanted to use LSTA money to upgrade infrastructure<br />
***Contracted w/ company who went bankrupt<br />
***Then the schools worked to finish up the job<br />
***The libraries used to connect through schools<br />
****But they then disconnected because the schools because of technical difficulties and school staff not having time to support the libraries (when the schools were providing Internet)<br />
**Wants to have people get on common catalog platform<br />
**Only place in Buhl that has broadband is the school (via T1)<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Available throughout south Idaho<br />
***From either telco or cable<br />
**A lot of people mention that Qwest is slow to deploy<br />
*Barriers to broadband<br />
**Money<br />
**Technical expertise<br />
**Resistance to adoption<br />
*B &amp; M Gates <br />
**Educational awareness would help a lot—the Gates Foundation is positioned to do that<br />
**Public Libraries are an undervalued commodity—not funded much<br />
***Some people consider libraries an essential service (Fire Chief sees them as an important way to keep his fire fighters educated)<br />
***Not funded very well (staff are underpaid)<br />
**Fund school libraries<br />
<br />
==Caribou Technologies, Inc==<br />
<br />
Archie Clemins is the president of Caribout Technologies, Inc. He served on a broadband taskforce.<br />
<br />
*Background<br />
**Lived in Boise for 7 years; spent 34 years in the Navy<br />
**Formed a consulting company for technology<br />
**On the board of Global Crossing<br />
**Was on Governors 2020 task force<br />
***Ed Sub-committee<br />
***Science &amp; technology advisory committee<br />
**Both him and his wife are from small times<br />
**The thing about Idaho is there are a lot of people in the legislature from the cities and a lot of people run; the people that are Senior in Congress are from rural areas<br />
**In the future, there are a lot of people moving here<br />
***How do you attract $60,000 jobs<br />
**It is hard to change small towns<br />
**Libraries and schools are the center of the small towns<br />
***There is a tremendous amount of history in these libraries awaiting digitization<br />
**If you have broadband to their libraries, you will increase value in libraries<br />
**Views the problem as a last mile<br />
**Believer of if you build it, they will come<br />
*Idaho Science &amp; Tech Stimulus package<br />
**out of $350 million package, only $300,000 was approved<br />
**The state doesn’t have a CIO, which is not good<br />
**Which on the package would be best<br />
***Matching funds for grant money<br />
***Tax incentives<br />
*Broadband Steering Committee Report<br />
**Everyone does it separately by departments<br />
**There is even a difference in how schools operate<br />
***Teach the teachers to use technology, or it will be ineffective<br />
**Technology is the easy part, change management more difficult<br />
*Problems and barriers<br />
**LECs not wanting to go out<br />
**Not the right level of intellectual capitol<br />
**Needs a CIO to help set the agenda<br />
*Broadband deployment<br />
**Behind Japan and Korea<br />
**Looking backwards instead of forwards<br />
***Why would you put in copper instead of fiber?<br />
**Doesn’t think the government ought to do things<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Change management<br />
***Most people his age (60s) don’t much about the area that we are talking about<br />
**DSL and other technologies are not adequate<br />
*Broadband<br />
**Thinks it should be defined as 4 or 5 Mbps <br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Whatever they do, it needs to be with something else<br />
**Thinks there should be a zoning law should be put in place whereby all new houses should have fiber<br />
**I would recommend that they give money to the rural segments<br />
***Require matching funds, board of directors meet quarterly w/ reporting, have time tables. This will ensure accountability.<br />
<br />
==State Library IT Staff==<br />
<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**The person w/ the most information is Great (who is not in the meeting)<br />
**They interact w/ libraries but they do not go out in the field to discuss connectivity<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geology and remoteness of cities, etc.<br />
**Financial barriers—funding is an issue<br />
**Some still using dial-up<br />
*State of broadband<br />
**State is at the tail end of technology<br />
**Where you are geographically<br />
**70% of population in urban—with a lot of competition<br />
**Not on the Interstate, not sure if they will be connectivity<br />
**Limited providers<br />
**Starting to use Verizon Cards in some of the laptops from the state library<br />
**Ask telcos what is available<br />
***The libraries will call and ask<br />
***Vendor as advisor is not a good model<br />
***A lot of vapor selling<br />
***A lot of talk of what can be done and inability to talk w/ stakeholders<br />
**Thinks it’s too bad that state libraries don’t have staff to go and talk w/ libraries <br />
***Would be nice to have someone go out and help them<br />
***Most libraries don’t have a IT staff of any kind<br />
**No one to support libraries locally<br />
**Having a mobile force would be best<br />
***Not necessarily just for libraries—form a cooperative with other people<br />
***But some agencies may not want to have outsiders working w/ their computers<br />
**Difficulty in passing libraries bonds<br />
**Idaho is stingy—doesn’t realize you need to spend money to make money<br />
*Solutions &amp; Problems<br />
**Economic Development for the whole state<br />
**Don’t want to create a technology welfare state<br />
**Have IT structure in place over time<br />
***Teach them to fix their own computers<br />
**Push to have technology level @ consortium level<br />
**One solution is that if the library set up a tower, they could get broadband<br />
**Stressing that libraries could be the place of access<br />
***Have positive light for libraries<br />
*One thing Idaho does well is promoting the value of libraries<br />
*B &amp; M Gates Interventions <br />
**Marketing—Increase advocacy and doesn’t realize the value of libraries<br />
**Need to change perception of libraries—Not books, but access to information &amp; technology<br />
***If no broadband, shows value and grassroots activities<br />
***Create &amp; show demand<br />
**Education of librarians<br />
***Not just librarians, but educating the public as to the value of the library<br />
***Targeting kids w/ education of the libraries; shows value<br />
**Mobile Tech support &amp; Training people<br />
***Lots of turnover <br />
*IDANET<br />
**A good system, but drawback is that there are several points of contact to get set-up<br />
**Definitely useful for offices of an entity</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2543Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T04:04:02Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years<br />
<br />
==ID Department of Education==<br />
<br />
Mark Russel is the technology director for the ID Dept. of Ed. <br />
Gary Lowe is the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy<br />
<br />
*Dept of Ed. Wants to be example of how to use technology in schools<br />
*State of Broadband Deployment<br />
**Growing<br />
**In 2003, they led the nation in per capita deployment and adoption<br />
**Shortage in last mile deployment (very expensive in ID)<br />
*Leaders in deployment<br />
**Cable and Rural Telcos<br />
**Not bigger ones (Qwest and Verizon not explicitly mentioned by name<br />
**Smaller has no shareholders or corporate to answer to<br />
**Bigger ones only want to invest where they can maximize ROI<br />
*All schools off of dial up<br />
*Impedements<br />
**Geographic segmentation<br />
***No base…no build out<br />
**Geological make-up—lots of rock &amp; montains<br />
**Sparce population density<br />
**Lack of ability to technically support it<br />
*State Government deployment<br />
**Tax Incentive<br />
**ID Rural Broadband<br />
**IDANET<br />
***Good idea, but not effective; has not achieved its goals<br />
**ITERMC<br />
***Reviews and documents IT and forms IT plans<br />
***No regulatory authority—only advice <br />
*Video Franchise<br />
**Did not pass<br />
**Dept. of Ed did not see any value for schools<br />
*Major Issues<br />
**Libraries not able to employ competent technology staff difficult to get advice<br />
***A bit of a conflict of interest to have the telcos be their principle advisors for connectivity when they are the ones to deploy it<br />
*DoE interections w/ libraries<br />
** Libraries can take advantage of services offered by department, but don’t<br />
***MB Note: Ann Joslin reports to Dept. of Ed<br />
***MB Note2: Does not seem to want libs to take advantage of services @ department…does not market and indicates they are swamped w/ requests from their dept.<br />
**Thinks it may be useful to make public libraries and school libraries one in the same in the same community (more efficient that way)<br />
**There is no incentive for libraries or schools to want to work together, so they don’t<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Incentives to partner w/ school districts<br />
**Create hubs to reach places where difficult to deploy broadband<br />
**Also recommended satellite<br />
*MB Notes<br />
**They don't understand library community<br />
**They also don't have a sense about telecom policy<br />
**Interviewees seemed to be one step removed from understanding deployment to schools (I had to explain what E-Rate was b/c they saw a presentation on E-Rate and was curious)</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2542Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T03:39:30Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==PUC==<br />
<br />
Paul Kjellander is a commissioner on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission<br />
<br />
*How do you think broadband deployment is working in Idaho?<br />
**Broadband is a mixed bag of tricks<br />
**Major metro doing well<br />
**Some pockets where it will be difficult<br />
**Satellite is available, but is not affordable<br />
**Rural Telephone has banded together to form Syrenga Net, which is a ring in Idaho<br />
***Doesn’t know what their take rate is, but large penetration<br />
***In some places, triple play before others<br />
***Grant $$$ to pull that together<br />
**Some regulated carriers draw from Federal &amp; State USF<br />
***Helps w/ deployment of fiber<br />
**State has created investment broadband tax credit<br />
***Gone a long way to ensure rural deployment and there is a tax incentive<br />
***PUC checks to see if the carrier can get the tax credit (ensures equipment and availability)<br />
***Technology neutral<br />
***Not restricted to rural carriers<br />
**Is the tax incentive enough? No—in some areas it doesn’t pencil out easily<br />
***Possible subsidized access to incent deployment<br />
*Cable<br />
**CableOne—competition w/ Satellite<br />
**Triple play from telcos is competing, as well<br />
*Other incentives<br />
**Revenue sharing pot from Qwest—bringing fiber to rural areas<br />
***Some of the revenue went to connect public libraries<br />
*Jurisdiction<br />
**No regulation over advanced telcom services<br />
**Hold onto regulation of land lines<br />
***Carriers are vertically integrated (anything under the sun went into how PUC calculated their rates)<br />
***After advanced services de-regulated, companies became a bit more siloed<br />
*Anything else you can do to incent deployment?<br />
**Work w/ Rural Utilities to build business plans to deploy<br />
**Does not force deployment<br />
**Can’t say he would like more regulation<br />
***Job to call balls and strikes—not control the strike zone<br />
*Biggest Success to promote broadband<br />
**Not to look @ rural carriers and tell them that they can’t include fiber (does not exclude from state USF)<br />
**Allowed for full recovery of cost of fiber, even if it was more then necessary for telephony<br />
**Liberal in approach to granting tax incentive breaks<br />
*USF<br />
**Collected from every consumer that is a revenue based formula<br />
**Provides subsidy to pay for difference <br />
**Capped @ 24.10 (max that can be charged<br />
***USF makes up the difference of how much it costsfs<br />
**For rural companies State and Federal USF is half of their revenues<br />
*Munis and co-ops not regulated by PUC<br />
**Boards does the regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates recommendations<br />
**Look for ways to help get it out to the rural areas in a hard-wired way<br />
***Wireless may not be a viable option in the long run<br />
***Without battery back-up, when there is a blackout, you run out of service<br />
<br />
*Syringa Networks<br />
**Owned by 12 rural and independent telcos<br />
**Built network to have independence from Qwest<br />
**Built fiber network that covers Southern Idaho<br />
**Competes w/ Qwest to provide high speed service<br />
**Brought in advanced services where they weren’t available before<br />
**Reduced the backhaul costs<br />
**Middle mile provider<br />
**Brought capacity to the small companies<br />
***Owners, suppliers and customers are the same people<br />
**In some cases Qwest didn’t want to upgrade their facilities<br />
**A wholesale ISP to the smaller companies<br />
**Deploys DSL faster then Qwest in rural towns<br />
**Take rate is pretty high<br />
**No USF money, no regulation<br />
**Sell retail to businesses (will sell frame relay, ATM or Ethernet)<br />
**About 22 other networks (indatelgroup.org)<br />
**Has fiber to the Internet2 and NLR POP in Boise (leases some fiber from Level3)<br />
*$5 million from state<br />
**Enhancing their services instead of bringing to un-served areas<br />
*Tax incentive (Broadband Tax-incentive Credit)<br />
**Passed in 2001-2002<br />
**Some say that it was passed to help Syringa get their network built<br />
**About 3% of investment in equipment &amp; fiber is tax credit<br />
**Helped build the network<br />
**Idaho telcos (rural and large) lobbied heavily to get the bill passed<br />
**Any investment is written<br />
**Has to be equipment and fiber and that it is used to deliver broadband<br />
*What should be done to increase broadband?<br />
**If the state would just get its act together, they could save a lot of money and bring economies of state<br />
**Volunteered to bring 100 Mb of connectivity, but no one took advantage of it (intrastate connectivity only)<br />
**Signs that state may get things going again<br />
**Need to stop calling it IDANET (too much political baggage associated with it)<br />
**Universities are nervous about cooperating with the state agencies<br />
***If higher ed, k12 and state agencies (only would mention libraries and health after prompted<br />
*Bills<br />
**Qwest got a bill for de-regulation<br />
***Smaller companies didn’t try and block with a tentative re-write of the telcos<br />
****State Universal Service reform, some de-regulation<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Technical resources and support<br />
**Fixed cost networking hardware<br />
**Make up front payment for a few years</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho&diff=2541Idaho2007-03-30T03:36:28Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>&lt;!--googleoff: index--&gt;<br />
==Data==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Public Libraries and the Internet===<br />
Statewide<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!LT56kbps!!56-128kbps!!129-256kbps!!257-768kbps!!769-1.5kbps!!GT1.5mbps!!DK!!!!LT 769!!GT769<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||17.40%||7.50%||10.00%||19.90%||24.90%||12.90%||7.50%||||54.80%||37.80%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
By Metropolitan Status<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Rural!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Surburban!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Urban||<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||59.60%||32.20%||7.90%||||Idaho||0%||100%||0%||||Idaho||0%||100.00%||0%||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===E-Rate===<br />
<br />
41% of libraries in Idaho receive E-Rate discounts.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Internet2 SPEGs===<br />
<br />
Idaho does not have an Internet2 SPEG.<br />
<br />
<br />
===ORS Survey Data===<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;2&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!colspan=&quot;8&quot;|How Libraries Connect...!!colspan=&quot;7&quot;|Barriers !!<br />
|-<br />
!State!!% of Libraries w/ Broadband!!Teleco Company!!School District!!Local Gov't!!Regional Telecom Network!!Regional Library Network!!State Telecomm Network!!State Library Telecom Network!!Other!!Few!!Comm Capacity!!Too Many Companies!!High Cost!!State Policy!!Lack of Local Expertise!!Other!!# of Vulnerable Libraries<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||51-75%||X||X||X||X||||||||||||X||X||X||X||||||NR<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Misc.===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Library Conn'y (Draft - circ'd by Rick W. (J. Bertot)!!Receives Fed'l High-Cost Funding!!State Adv. Services, BBd or Tech Fund||State USF High-Cost!!State USF Schools &amp; Lib!!State USF Low-Income(in add'n to fed'l)!!Provides state support for Fed'l Lifeline/Linkup||Statewide Network (SEGP)!!Statewide Video Franchise!!Notes<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||Less than 40% of libraries with connectivity speeds of 769kbps or higher ||States receiving greater than $5 per line in high cost support||||X ($unknown)||X ($2M)||||X||||||||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===FCC Data===<br />
Providers of High Speed Lines by Technology<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!ADSL!!SDSL!!Traditional&lt;br/&gt;Wireline!!Cable&lt;br/&gt;Modem!!Fiber!!Satellite!!Fixed&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Mobile&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Power Line&lt;br/&gt;and Other!!Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||97,662||480||1,514||75,185||1,078||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||29,915||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||0||202,521||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!1999&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2000&lt;br/&gt;June!!2001&lt;br/&gt;June!!2002&lt;br/&gt;June!!2003&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2005&lt;br/&gt;June!!2005&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2006&lt;br/&gt;June!!<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||8,070||20,233||43,119||64,353||99,845||126,121||149,023||167,926||202,521||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Universal Service Fund<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|State or Jurisdiction!!colspan=&quot;6&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Payments from USF to Service Providers!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot; colspan =&quot;2&quot;|Estimated&lt;br/&gt;Contributions!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Estimated Net&lt;br/&gt; Dollar Flow<br />
|-<br />
!High Cost&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Low-Income&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Schools &amp;&lt;br/&gt;Libraries!!Rural Health&lt;br/&gt;Care!!colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;br/&gt;Total<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!Amount!!% of Total!!Amount!!% of Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Idaho||55,055||3,923||2,797||153||61,928||0.95%||31,945||0.49%||29,983||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Broadband Providers==<br />
<br />
<br />
==State Network Information==<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Network Org.!!Funding Source!!Constituents!!Control Body!!Technology!!<br />
|-<br />
|IDAHO||No information available at this time||||||||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==State-Level Broadband Report==<br />
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/telecom/28784.pdf<br />
<br />
==Idaho Profile - ALA-OITP==<br />
===Idaho Commission of Libraries===<br />
<br />
The State Commission is in the Executive Branch of Idaho state government under the State Board of Education. The State Commission is governed by the Board of Library Commissioners consisting of six members; five members are appointed by the State Board of Education, the sixth member is the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who serves ex-officio.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The State Commission Board appoints the State Librarian who serves at its pleasure. The State Lbrarian implements the State Commission Board's policies and rules.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Ann Joslin is the Idaho State Librarian, appointed in 2005. Ms. Joslin was an Associate State Librarian before her appointment. She succeeded Charles Bolles, who served as State Librarian for 24 years.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;State Library Contacts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
|Ann Joslin&lt;br/&gt;State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;208-334-2150&lt;br/&gt;ann.joslin@libraries.idaho.gov||Idaho Falls, ID 83404&lt;br/Phone: (208) 525-7211&lt;br/&gt;fnelson@isl.state.id.us<br />
|-<br />
|Marj Hooper&lt;br/&gt;Associate State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;208-334-2150&lt;br/&gt;Marj.hooper@libraries.idaho.gov||Jan Wall&lt;br/&gt;E-Rate Coordinator&lt;br/&gt;Moscow ID 83843&lt;br/&gt;Phone: (208) 882-8882&lt;br/&gt;jan.wall@libraries.idaho.gov<br />
|-<br />
|Frank Nelson&lt;br/&gt;Data Coordinator||Gina Persichini&lt;br/&gt;Networking consultant&lt;br/&gt;(208) 334-2150&lt;br/&gt;gina.persichini@libraries.idaho.gov<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===ICFL Statewide Activities===<br />
<br />
In August of 2005, the Idaho Library community gathered in a “Think Tank” to consider the future of Idaho libraries. Working with science fiction writers, experts on trends and libraries, and facilitated by planning expert and futurist Glen Hiemstra, the participants explored trends, discussed alternate future scenarios for Idaho libraries, and proposed ideas for a vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
After this event, more than a hundred Idahoans gathered in a series of seven regional meetings to learn the results of the Think Tank. Participants in the regional meetings provided recommendations on trends to consider, ideas for improving the vision themes, and suggestions on how the vision might be implemented. Finally, a Steering Committee met to refine the vision and develop proposed strategies based the input. The report is available at http://libraries.idaho.gov/files/default/2020vision-document.pdf&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Libraries Linking Idaho (LiLI)&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
LiLi is an alliance of libraries and library consortia working together to further the common good. LiLI is a project of the Library Commission. LiLI vision’s is to:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. Offer services to all the libraries in Idaho, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. Extend and supplement local and regional resources and services to the citizens of Idaho, &lt;br/&gt;<br />
3. Build on the strength of existing networking and resource sharing efforts in the state, and &lt;br/&gt;<br />
4. Provide a framework for future cooperation that recognizes the diverse missions and strengths of its participants. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The LiLI website became available in October 1997. In 1998, the State Legislature approved funding for statewide access to online databases and the funding continues today. LiLI has started a group catalog linking Idaho libraries catalogs through a contract with OCLC. The LiLI Unlimited program (group catalog) is being implemented in four phases. As of January 2006, 115 libraries participated. These libraries include all of Idaho’s academic libraries, two-thirds of public libraries, and 29 public school libraries. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt; LiLI Steering Committee&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
|Ann Joslin&lt;br/&gt;Idaho Commission for Libraries&lt;br/&gt;325 W. State St. Boise, ID 83702&lt;br/&gt;334-2150; FAX: 334-4016||Sue Niewenhous&lt;br/&gt;Lewis Clark State College Library&lt;br/&gt;Lewiston, ID 83501-3698&lt;br/&gt;792-2395; FAX: 799-2831&lt;br/&gt;sniewenh@lcsc.edu<br />
|-<br />
|Marilyn Moody&lt;br/&gt;Boise State University&lt;br/&gt;Albertsons Library&lt;br/&gt;Boise, ID 83725&lt;br/&gt;426-3650; FAX: 426-1394&lt;br/&gt;MarilynMoody@boisestate.edu||Lynn Baird&lt;br/&gt;Interim Director&lt;br/&gt;University of Idaho Library&lt;br/&gt;Moscow, ID 83844-2350&lt;br/&gt;885-7070; FAX: 426-1394&lt;br/&gt;lbaird@uidaho.edu <br />
|-<br />
|Kay Flowers&lt;br/&gt;Idaho State University&lt;br/&gt;Oboler Library&lt;br/&gt;Pocatello, ID 83209-0009&lt;br/&gt;236-2997; FAX: 236-4295&lt;br/&gt;flowkay@isu.edu ||Jane Somerville (2010a)&lt;br/&gt;Stanley Community Public Library District&lt;br/&gt;Stanley, ID 83278 &lt;br/&gt;774-2470 &lt;br/&gt;stanlib@ruralnetwork.net <br />
|-<br />
|Julie Woodford (2010b)&lt;br/&gt;Burley Public Library&lt;br/&gt;Burley, ID 83318&lt;br/&gt;878-7708&lt;br/&gt;library@bplibrary.org||Mary DeWalt(2008a)&lt;br/&gt;Ada Community Library&lt;br/&gt;Boise, ID 83709&lt;br/&gt;362-0181; FAX: 362-0303&lt;br/&gt;mdewalt@adalib.org<br />
|-<br />
|Marcia Beckwith (2008b)&lt;br/&gt;Boise, ID 83709&lt;br/&gt;208-287-2131&lt;br/&gt;marcia.beckwith@boiseschools.org||Cora Caldwell (2007a)&lt;br/&gt;Gooding High School&lt;br/&gt;Gooding, ID 83330&lt;br/&gt;208-934-4831&lt;br/&gt;caldwelc@gooding.k12.id.us <br />
|-<br />
|Cindy Erickson (2007a)&lt;br/&gt;Soda Springs Public Library&lt;br/&gt;Soda Springs, ID 83276&lt;br/&gt;208-547-2606&lt;br/&gt;sspl@sodaspringsid.com ||Joe Reiss (2009a)&lt;br/&gt;Post Falls Public Library&lt;br/&gt;Post Falls, ID 83854&lt;br/&gt;773-1506; FAX 773-1507&lt;br/&gt;jreiss@cin.kcl.org<br />
|-<br />
|Edit Szanto (2009a)&lt;br/&gt;College of Southern Idaho&lt;br/&gt;Twin Falls, ID 83301&lt;br/&gt;732-6500; FAX 736-3087&lt;br/&gt;eszanto@csi.edu||Leann Wicks&lt;br/&gt;Grangeville Joint School District&lt;br/&gt;Grangeville, ID 83530&lt;br/&gt;983-0990&lt;br/&gt;wicksl@jsd241.org <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Idaho Public Libraries===<br />
<br />
Idaho has 104 publicly funded library jurisdictions including, 51 districts, 50 cities, and three school-community libraries. Idaho has 102 central library buildings, 38 branches, and seven bookmobiles.<br />
<br />
===Idaho Regional Network and Consortia===<br />
<br />
The following are voluntary associations of libraries in Idaho. Most span county lines and three, INCOL, VALnet, and CIN, have formed the Washington Idaho Network (WIN) that spans state lines. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Canyon Owyhee Library Group (COLG) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/155&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cooperative Information Network (CIN) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/156&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Inland Northwest Library Automation Network (INLAN) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/157&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Inland Northwest Council of Libraries (INCOL) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/160&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Library Consortium of Eastern Idaho (LCEI) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/161&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Lynx Consortium &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/162&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Valley Library Network (VALNet) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/163&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Valley Mountain Library Consortium (VMLC) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/164&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Washington Idaho Network (WIN) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/165&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
West End Library Consortium (WELCOM)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://libraries.idaho.gov/node/166&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===State Legislative Issues===<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Video Franchising&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/br&gt;<br />
<br />
HB 192, the CABLE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT is assigned to the State Affairs Committee in Idaho’s House of Representatives. No hearing is scheduled for this bill. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Broadband Development Matching Fund&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The 2006 Idaho Legislature created a broadband development matching fund. According to the bill (S1498) its purpose was to “make available matching funds, on a reimbursement basis, for rural broadband investment plans. The legislature appropriated $5 million in grants of up to $1 million per project to extend broadband to rural areas. Each grant must be matched in cash by the recipient. In July 2006, the state awarded $4.9 million in matching funds to four broadband providers. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
•Verizon received $451,780 to install equipment to serve 7,910 potential subscribers through 10 projects.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
•Qwest received $3,770,950 to serve 31,210 potential subscribers in 55 communities. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
•First Step Internet received $24,521 to deliver service to an estimated 824 subscribers in four areas. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
•SpeedyQuick Networks received $654,871 to provide service to 8,857 potential subscribers in 18 communities. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The Idaho Cable Telecommunications Association (ICTA) released a report analyzing the award process and implementation of this program in February 2007. This report is available at http://www.idahocable.com/Broadband%20Analysis%20Final.pdf.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===State Associations===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Idaho Library Association&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tamra Hawley-House, President &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Boise Public Library &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Boise, ID 83702 &lt;br/&gt;<br />
208-384-4200 (w) &lt;br/&gt;<br />
thawley@cityofboise.org&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;The Idaho Economic Development Association&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
The Idaho Economic Development Association (IEDA) was founded as a nonprofit corporation in 2000 by a group of dedicated economic development professionals to serve those with an interest in economic and community development. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Cliff Long, IEDA President&lt;br/&gt;<br />
411 3rd St. South&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nampa, ID 83651&lt;br/&gt;<br />
208.468.5407 Phone&lt;br/&gt;<br />
e-mail: longc@ci.nampa.us&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Idaho TechVConntect &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Idaho TechConnect is the state's market driven private-public organization focused solely on technology - its development, transfer and commercialization.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Rick Ritter &lt;br/&gt;<br />
4565 E. Terra Linda &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nampa, ID 83687&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(208) 562-3700&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Idaho Cable Telecommunications Association (ICTA) &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
Ron Williams, ICTA Executive Director&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1015 W. Hays Street&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Boise, ID 83702&lt;br/&gt;<br />
V: (208) 344-6633&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Email: ron@williamsbradbury.com&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt; Idaho Telephone Association &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
Molly Steckel, Executive Director &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Boise, Idaho 83701-1638&lt;br/&gt;<br />
208-229-1ITA (229-1482) Office&lt;br/&gt;<br />
208-866-2136 Cell&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Email: mollysteckel@msn.com&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===USDA Rural Broadband Program ===<br />
<br />
The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program is designed to provide loans for funding, on a technology neutral basis, the costs of construction, improvement and acquisition of facilities and equipment to provide broadband services to eligible rural communities. The Program’s goal is to ensure that rural consumers enjoy the same quality and range of telecommunications services that are available in urban and suburban communities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Mike Dolezal&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Chester, ID 83421&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(208) 624-1401&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Email: mike.dolezal@wdc.usda.gov&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Businesses of Interest ===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;PowerGrid Communications&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
Offers broadband over power lines using the existing electrical grid. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Corporate office&lt;br/&gt;<br />
6676 N. Double Eagle Lane&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Meridian ID 83642&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Phone: 208-841-8822&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fax: 208-895-9818&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Key On Communications&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
2/21/07 - KeyOn Communications is now one of the United States' leading providers of wireless broadband and voice-over-IP (VoIP) services in small and rural markets with its recent acquisition of SpeedNet Services, Inc., a Midwest-based wireless broadband company. This continued consolidation by KeyOn bridges the country's communication divide through the creation of the largest rural, wireless broadband company in the nation, covering a dozen states: Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio; with a network footprint of over 45,000 square miles.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
KeyOn's high-speed internet data service allows customers to access the internet without the use of cable or telephone lines. The service uses radio-based point-to-multipoint connections. From http://www.bbwexchange.com/pubs/2007/02/21/page1250-467641.asp&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Jason Lazar&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Director of Corporate Development&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KEYON COMMUNICATIONS INC&lt;br/&gt;<br />
4067 Dean Martin Drive&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Las Vegas, NV 89103 &lt;br/&gt;<br />
702-949-3580&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Broadband Developments in the News ===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Rural broadband Internet&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
Rural Idahoans Can’t Read This—But Oregonians, Washingtonians Can. By Sharon Fisher, 3-10-07. Available at http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/idahoans_cant_read_this/. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Some rural Idahoans are still being told that they can’t have access to high-speed, broadband Internet that would give them access to features such as video. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Exactly how many don’t have it who want it is unclear, but it could be up to 10% of the population. While Jim Schmit, President of Idaho Operations for Qwest, told attendees of the Emerging Directions in Economic Development conference in Boise on Friday that “virtually all” Idahoans had such access, about a quarter of the economic development professionals attending indicated that they represented a community that didn’t have it yet, and most of the questions related to how their communities could get the access they’d been told wasn’t available. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, in rural Oregon and Washington, communities are using high-speed Internet access to attract new business and improve public safety. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In Washington, the Legislature passed in 2000 a law that allowed Public Utility Districts to deliver wholesale broadband Internet to retail providers. Grant County, a rural area in the center of the state, invested $40 million in broadband infrastructure, said Thomas Jones, vice president of 180 Connect Inc., a Toronto, Canada, provider of technical support services who spoke at the broadband infrastructure panel. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Between broadband access and the cheap power provided by the Grand Coulee Dam, the area has been able to attract installations from vendors such as Microsoft and Google, Jones said. “None of these are in Idaho, and I think there’s a reason why,” he said. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
For example, the Gorge amphitheater—in addition to being supplied with breathtaking views and popular music—also has broadband Internet, and the House of Blues, which owns the facility, has considered using the facility as a backup to its Los Angeles offices in the case of a natural disaster. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
In fact, this year the Washington Legislature is considering a pilot program to enable the public utility districts to provide broadband Internet services on a retail basis as well as wholesale. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Similarly, though Tom Pickren of Tropos Networks said during the panel that a technology called WiMAX is not yet available, it is already being used over a 700-mile area in eastern Oregon. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
WiMAX is similar to the wifi technology that is currently widely used, but is based upon cellular phone communication methods, which means it has a much broader range than wifi—up to 30 miles—and it is being looked at as a means to provide broadband Internet to rural America. <br />
Much of the cost of the eastern Oregon WiMAX network was funded by the Department of Homeland Security, to protect chemical weapons located in the area.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A lack of broadband Internet not only limits the economic development of rural Idaho, but limits public education as well. During the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee hearings on public education, state superintendent of instruction Tom Luna indicated that his department was considering providing students with electronic textbooks, which are both cheaper than published textbooks and can be more easily updated. Consequently, children who live in areas without broadband Internet could end up being limited to published textbooks, Representative Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene and chairman of the House Education Committee, told JFAC. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
This could raise the spectre of a two-tiered educational system, leaving rural Idahoans even further behind. “A school with dialup is a school that is disconnected from the infrastructure they need to survive,” said Senator Eliot Werk, D-Boise, during JFAC hearings.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, some rural economic development professionals reported that they had trouble getting cooperation from incumbent telephone and Internet companies—while such a company might not find it financially feasible to supply an area with broadband Internet, at the same time it doesn’t want to free the community to find solutions elsewhere. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it could be worse. One presenter noted that four states completely prohibited any municipality from participating in a broadband initiative. “Fortunately, Idaho isn’t one of them,” he noted. <br />
At least, not yet. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
From http://www.bbwexchange.com/publications/newswires/page546-836257.asp&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
FairPoint Broadband and KeyOn Communications announced a joint agreement that will bring high-speed wireless Internet access services to Pocatello, Idaho. Based on the growing demand for high-speed Internet access and voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) services, they have teamed up to offer a suite of broadband services to residential and business consumers. Services will be marketed as FairPoint Broadband and delivered using KeyOn's patent-pending technology and wireless infrastructure design. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Under the agreement, the companies will offer broadband services in the greater Pocatello area. Leveraging a history of providing telecommunications in more than 150 markets, FairPoint chose KeyOn as a partner in entering Pocatello to offer a competitive high-speed Internet service with VoIP services, expected to come online later in the year. The partnership will make use of KeyOn's broadband solution, which enables secure, cost-effective deployment of high-speed Internet access services to both residential and business markets. KeyOn's network will cover about 95 percent of all homes and business in Pocatello and Chubbuck. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------<br />
<br />
BOISE, Idaho, Feb. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20070220/NYTU00520022007-1.html.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Verizon Wireless customers in Idaho can now access e-mail, corporate data, the Internet and more at faster speeds, and upload files five to six times faster than before as Verizon Wireless rolls out the next-generation of its high-speed broadband network in Boise, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Pocatello and Rexburg. Based on CDMA 1x Evolution- Data Optimized (EV-DO) Revision A (Rev. A) technology, the enhanced wireless broadband network provides Verizon Wireless customers in the greater Boise area and eastern Idaho with data uplink speeds significantly faster than the company's award-winning national EV-DO network, which the company rolled out in Idaho in late 2006.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The faster network coverage includes the greater Boise/Nampa area, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Pocatello and Rexburg, providing Verizon Wireless customers with faster access for sending and uploading data.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The company's existing EV-DO network allows customers to access BroadbandAccess on their laptops, e-mail on their PDAs, and V CAST Video and Music on their wireless phones. The company's national wireless broadband network, the first in the nation, is already available to more than 200 million Americans in 242 major metropolitan areas and 180 major airports from coast to coast.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The company's flagship business data service, BroadbandAccess, will run faster and more efficiently with the new network enhancements. Customers in enhanced coverage areas will be able to take advantage of upload speeds that are five to six times faster than with the company's existing wireless broadband network, plus interact with Web-based applications with improved latency for a better customer experience. For example, BroadbandAccess customers in enhanced wireless broadband coverage areas can expect average download speeds of 450-800 kilobits per second (kbps) and average upload speeds of 300-400 kbps, which means customers can download a 1 Megabyte e-mail attachment -- the equivalent of a small PowerPoint(R) presentation or a large PDF file -- in less than 15 seconds and upload the same size file in less than 25 seconds. The enhanced network coverage areas allow Verizon Wireless customers to download files approximately six times faster than customers of wireless service providers who use non-EV-DO technology.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;CIRCA NETWORK LAUNCHED IN IDAHO FALLS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tuesday Mar 13, 2007 from &lt;br/&gt;<br />
http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines.cfm&amp;ID=39641&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Just this month, the city of Idaho Falls launched its state-of-the-art Circa Network, a city-wide fiber optics system that is second-to-none. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Idaho Falls was very innovative in the early 1900's when it had the foresight to invest in and generate its own power along the Snake River. Today, that innovative investment continues with the city's 2.7 (M) million dollar technological upgrade. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Mark Reed, Manager of Idaho Falls Power's Circa Network: &quot;Circa is a city-wide fiber optic network.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A world class, high speed network of cable with 96 tiny strands that transmit digital information as fast as the speed of light -- so high-tech that all city services run on just two of those strands. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&quot;The city's seeing a great cost savings and cost of doing business as it pertains to telecommunications.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Not only does the city not have to pay a provider for its services, but providers themselves, along with businesses, want to pay the city for a piece of the action.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&quot;The network is on track in meeting its business plan on the commercial side to pay itself back.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
The increased efficiency is also due to newly installed web cams at the four power plants and 15 substations, which provide security surveillance and allow crews to be dispatched immediately upon discovering a power problem. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Maybe the best part of the fiber optics network is that it's almost certain to at least aid economic growth by tempting would-be businesses with the lure of cutting-edge telecommunication. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&quot;It's been a win-win.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
One of the oldest public power utilities in the northwest has found a way to reinvent itself, a step ahead of every other power municipality in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&quot;I think other cities in Idaho are looking at increasing their broadband capabilities to fulfill their current and future needs. We were just in front of them in getting that done.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Circa also has the capability for new technology such as video on demand and digital, high-definition programming.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;!--googleon: index--&gt;</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Idaho_State_Visit_Data&diff=2540Idaho State Visit Data2007-03-30T03:35:59Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Michigan_State_Visit_Data&diff=2539Michigan State Visit Data2007-03-30T03:27:53Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Follow up==<br />
<br />
===Don Wood @ MERIT===<br />
I think it has been a long process for Michigan. I think there are a number of factors. The staff has to be good. Learning how to build and operate fiber is not easy. There is lots of local learning (people, procedures, etc) involved in building fiber. Then having a quality outreach staff that is trusted by the community is key. We have asked our community to trust us as we helped put consortiums and partnerships together. I guess it is that we in all aspects of life - get the right people together and turn them loose!<br />
<br />
===Sheryl Mase @ Michigan Library===<br />
I would say public demand for resources that use ever increasing bandwidth and forward thinking librarian response to this demand.<br />
<br />
If you meant how did we achieve the deployment, I would say through the library cooperatives and the Library of Michigan and Merit.<br />
<br />
==Michigan Focus Group Session==<br />
===Version: March 20, 2007 - Notes from Bob Bocher&lt;br/&gt;===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Martha Pitchford, Lakeland Library Cooperative: Some issue RFP because of E-rate. Have 6-8 phone companies to deal with. Cooperative serves 1.2 million population. Annual ISP costs is $276,000, which member libraries pay.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Lise Mitchell, Chippewa River District Library: E-rate is critical to connectivity. Have four phone companies. Pay twice for circuit when it is handed off between AT&amp;T and Verizon. Often takes 6 months to get added bandwidth. When AT&amp;T split a circuit and some is now provided by Verizon, our cost doubled.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
James Seidl, Woodlands Library Cooperative: Have 36 libraries in the cooperative and all connect independently from each other. No cooperative WAN. Some use DSL, Cable, dedicated circuit. Speeds from 768K to 3MB. Costs are “All over the board.” Some have MERIT; one library connects via their MAN; one library (with its branches) needs to work with four different telcos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Roger Mendel, Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative: Decentralized connectivity, like Woodland. Some use their local telco. One library does wireless via Vonnage. Cooperative does some E-rate follow-up to ensure libraries complete their forms.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Suzanne Dees, Superiorland Library Cooperative: Have 63 libraries. It’s a 7 hour drive from one end of the cooperative’s service area to the other. Use interactive video for communication; cooperative with Regional Educational Media Center (REMC, their K-12 regional cooperative.) Have Sirsi/Dynix. Their libraries use five different ISPs. Twelve libraries on MERIT. Some have just 256K and three libraries are at 3MB. One library uses wireless provided by Charter, their local cable company. Also have a telemed network. Very dependent on E-rate. Libraries pay $5,370-$8650 annually for connectivity (pre-discount), excluding MERIT frame-relay circuit fee. $108,000 total annual cost. Bottom line: “Our connectivity allows us to do what we need to do vs. what we want to do.”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Andrea Michelini, The Library Network (TLN): Have 58 libraries in five counties in the SE part of state. TLN serves 30% of state’s population. Well connected: 42 libraries have T1, 3 have 3MB, 13 have fiber. Have been laying down fiber since May 2006 for head end and 13 sites. (Lease fiber, AT&amp;T owns it.) This WAN is used for Net access and for shared ILS (Sirsi/Dynix) by 55 libraries. TLN is a member of MERIT and AT&amp;T is underlying carrier. Most MERIT costs paid by individual libraries. All libraries have E-rate on the circuit but not Net access because most do not filter. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What do you use your bandwidth for?&lt;br/&gt; <br />
2a) Internet connectivity – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2b) Internal operations – describe uses &lt;br/&gt;<br />
2c) ILS/PAC – describe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2a: All the “usual stuff” like email, surfing the Web, etc. Seeing more access to videos, gaming, and electronic books (e.g., OverDrive). Libraries must address the changing nature of the Internet, and respond as needed to changing patron demands on what they access. Some cooperatives host their member libraries’ Websites.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
2b: Almost all facets of library work, including backend processes like book ordering, are dependent on the Internet. &lt;em&gt;“Our staff try and get their work done by 3pm because after that response time drops to zero.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Network technician was certain a hacker was causing our bandwidth problems. Turns out it was just “normal” library traffic.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
2c: Jim: Have ILS (Autographics) outsourced in California. When patron’s download videos, ILS response time suffers and sometimes fails (i.e., times out). New Gates PCs have fostered amazing use but there is no bandwidth. About three cooperatives have shared ILS. Where there is a shared ILS, there is more help on technical issues from the cooperative. Cooperatives send tech help if they run a shared ILS. Central ordering of parts, etc. Keep all hardware (e.g., routers) homogeneous.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• VPN; remote network and router diagnostics and PC management (push out service pack upgrades, etc.); staff email; MySpace; gaming; wireless access for patrons; distance education (interactive video); VoIP &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Our server was hacked and used to house Japanese pornography. Staff not versed on security issues. Small libraries do not have trained staff. Cannot expect the library director to do this!&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Some services can only be used at home because of library bandwidth issues. This is very frustrating.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Use packet shaping tools (e.g., Packeter) and caching to address bandwidth issues.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Let the ISP address bandwidth. They deal with the phone company to get us more bandwidth. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies do not care or are unresponsive to our needs. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Slow access makes patrons stay at the PC longer increasing lines and frustration from patrons waiting for access. Some patrons complain that other patrons are just using the Internet for frivolous reasons, like gaming. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Can have best bandwidth in the world, but the wiring in your building has to be good all the way down to the PC. Infrastructure in old buildings – cat 5 – is now old and the $$$ to change wiring, switches, routers all need to be replaced. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Insufficient bandwidth is determined by the number of irritated patrons&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Any more than a 10 second wait is too long&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The definition of sufficient bandwidth: “When you click, it happens.” &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• There are so many factors in this puzzle: ILS, LAN, patron use, problems “down the line, etc. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Filtering can add to overhead.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Just general patron and staff frustration&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Adequate fiber throughout the state &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons being allowed to do what they want to do&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Patrons coming in or using from home and being happy with what they get (and telling legislators!)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• UP – five ISPs – main are Merit and Charter. They won’t talk to each other! The library is trying to get them to work together so the data does not have to go to the Chicago NAP and back. (At Friday mtg, MERIT said they are working on this.) Competition is not necessarily good for cooperation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7) What are barriers is getting more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• State failed to take a statewide role in this. In mid-90s governor did not view a state network as a function of government. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• State economy is in bad shape, libraries facing major budget reductions. Libraries have lost millages and had to close branches, etc. State wants to cut state aid to public libraries (and cooperatives) by 50%. People have lost jobs and are looking to move out of state. Need infrastructure for high tech jobs. Manufacturing is gone. Michigan Works! Offices are sending folks to libraries but not paying anything to support this. Libraries are very willing to collaborate, but others do not seem to reciprocate &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Libraries at the mercy of the local phone companies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• E-rate does not allow us to pull our own fiber. Must lease this, which is not a good long-term situation.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Michigan – grass roots state – local control – would not have wanted a statewide network in years past. Slow to get the schools to understand how the Internet would be a good thing. Separate cultures not used to cooperating. Privitization may not be working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8a) Who applies for the E-rate funds? &lt;br/&gt;<br />
8b) How does CIPA impact? &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Only 7 of our 34 libraries file (for POTs). Too much paper work and follow-up work for smaller libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Getting $300-400 is not worth the effort&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Some don’t want to filter&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Cost as most important factor works against MERIT as ISP and some libraries have had to select different ISP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Always having open 2-3 years worth of applications and forms. This is very confusing&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Have to lease fiber, but sometimes its better to own it&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Phone companies not cooperative &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library pays $1,000 to a third party to file E-rate paperwork&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• ISPs not required to offer E-rate discounts, and some don’t&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• The accumulation of paperwork and length of time from paperwork to discounts is troubling &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• MERIT does a good job on bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Most ISPs fairly good at tracking bandwidth usage&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• No real state-level help&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Library cooperatives with WANs offer some level of help to their member libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful? &lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
• Develop or provide bandwidth tools, circuit testing, etc.; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Develop standards and benchmarks on connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds for planning statewide cooperation &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Model after a state that is doing it well. Parties involved – not used to working together. Maybe we need to do just libraries. County commissioners not re-elected go away, new ones don’t have the same priorities. Term limits cause the legislature to turn over and there is a constant re-training effort (sigh). Schools march to a different drummer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Funds to provide shared, sustained technical expertise. Someone who can come to our library to help. Cannot expect library director in a small library to have this level of technical expertise. Need more than WebJunction &lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Address huge difference in knowledge between sizes of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• Address issue of libraries needing to deal with telco providers &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Meeting Notes==<br />
&lt;u&gt;2/15/07 - Thursday morning:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Meeting with Nancy Robertson, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sheryl Mase, E-rate coordinator and Director of Statewide Services, State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Randy Dykhuis, Michigan Library Consortium&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries in Michigan are not centralized – some have strong regional cooperatives (13 of them), some have no cooperative or partnership at all. Some libraries run by the county, some city, some local community.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to establish a statewide library network several years ago – never happened; instead focused on e-rate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
7 of the library coops are members of MERIT, the university-state-run backbone network. Each coop makes its own telecom plans.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Library Network (TLN – Eastern Michigan) and Lakeland are largest library coops – often aggregate demand. TLN serves 58 libraries, 30% of state, were able to pool money to pay AT&amp;T to build fiber&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Upper Peninsula (UP) is surprisingly well-connected, largely due to the organizational efforts of Suzanne Dees.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Library Consortium (MLC) formed 30 years ago to create content for Michigan libraries, such as on-line catalogue system (OCLC), MelCAT&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan’s strategy was to focus on buying content and then hope the connectivity would follow. However, they now would like to buy databases with videos but does not think there is enough connectivity&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former Governor reluctant to build statewide library network, concerned about competing with private sector – preferred to give incentives to carriers to build the network, resulted in patchwork of regional networks.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Today Michigan faces severe budget constraints, little money to create a statewide network, even if it wanted to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many pockets of Michigan have no BB – outside of Ann Arbor, Big Rapids&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Greatest Barriers to BB?: &lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. technical expertise in libraries is lacking, this need is sometimes filled by the regional coops&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. financial – no funds to expand bb capacity, e-rate has helped, but more is needed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Focus Group&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The UP depends on one pipe into and out of the region – carries all banking, telephone calls, as well as libraries’ traffic. Some traffic has to be routed out of Michigan through Chicago.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries BB was adequate until video – class lectures, videoconferencing, distance learning – exhausted all capacity quickly. Staff can only do Internet work until 2 p.m. until students arrive. NYPublic Library has wonderful historical videos.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Rural libraries don’t have the staff or technical options to put in their own VPNs or packet shaping technologies or security. Regional Library consortiums at least put in technicians and can provide remote management to help libraries. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Is there a problem with the middle mile, or only the last mile? Regional consortiums often use the ISP to negotiate middle mile solutions with carriers. ISP can negotiate better because they aggregate demand and can talk technical needs with carriers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In rural areas, there may not be any middle mile and no ISP – may only have a direct local connection from library to backbone. Very expensive because of the distance. Postalized rates help, but may not be available depending on contract with local carrier.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many libraries have been holding back on wireless because bringing more laptops into the libraries creates even more congestion on the network. Traveling salesmen often use libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Georgia has “evergreen Automation – cheap ILS system (?)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries really need a “Geek Squad” to help them put together and manage BB network. Libraries could really use a technology advocate, someone who knows how to work with the technical people at the carriers to make sure the needs are met.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates did it right with computers – sent a technician along with the computers to help install and set it up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gates funded NPower – did not take off. Circuit Rider would be a better middle step (this is not the ultimate solution, but it would help)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NOTE: Texas set aside $80,000 (?) of LSTA money to create a technical assistance staff to work with the libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Michigan E-Library (MeL): Susan Davidsen, MeL Coordinator&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
This is a wonderful content portal for Michigan students and patrons. Has links to several on-line databases for free. Has excellent video lectures on health and wellness, legal information (court decisions), tutoring and educational videos. Many other databases and information. Very well-organized and useful. But this means even more demand and more BB is necessary to make use of it. Would like to subscribe to more video and audio services, but without sufficient broadband, the investment in subscriptions would be underutilized&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anyone with a valid Michigan driver’s license is eligible to sign on. Library can sign on automatically (no password) with a static IP address. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Lunch with Dave Vehslage – Verizon:&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon serves many rural areas of Michigan – left over from GTE acquisition. Michigan passed a deregulation bill in 2005 and a video franchise bill in 2006. Verizon is not seeking legislation in 2007 – nothing particular on its agenda. Verizon prefers that state government not seek to promote greater broadband initiatives. The market is working and will meet the demand if it is there. Many areas have BB available but do not know it or are not using it. &lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The Michigan Broadband Development authority has been a failure. It has authorized loans for BB where BB is already available, instead of focusing on unserved areas. It has written off $14 million of the $50 million loan it received from the Housing Dept. (from hiring staff and consultants and other overhead). BB Dev’t Authority has not been re-authorized and will go out of business this summer. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Verizon is not a part of the telephone association in Michigan. Disagreement over universal service is one reason.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3/15/07 Meeting w/ Lynne Draschil&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynne works for the Department of Information Technology (DIT) within the state. She is responsible for external relations with counties and munincipalities, application development.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is successful for connecting because the state is proactive in working with providers and working to increase coverage, libraries are successful because of collaboration with state libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;3/16/07 - Friday morning meeting with&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br />
George Boersma, Director of Department of Information Technology (DIT)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Coffiann Hawthorne, Deputy Legal Counsel and Policy Advisor to Michigan Governor Granholm&lt;br/&gt; <br />
Monica Martinez, PUC Commissioner&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kim Fedewa, Michigan Economic Development Corporation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
DIT works with local government and universities to move the Governor’s agenda forward on BB (and health care and other technology-based issues)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Focus on wireless – works with cities to implement municipal wi-fi networks, also looking at using MDOT (Dept. of Transportation) towers for BB and cellular antennas. Is conducting a survey of communities to determine underserved areas, and working with Development Authority.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC – not much cost-based regulation left after legislation 2 years ago removed much of its ratemaking authority or oversight because of competition; retains oversight of interconnection issues (CLEC-ILEC) and customer disclosure; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC has been looking at helping 2 new BB over power line (BPL) applicants seeking RUS funding. NARUC BPL task force issued study on the issue. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
PUC also notes that ALLBAND, a rural ILEC, is deploying fiber to the Home with RUS funding. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video franchise act passed last year with many of the same provisions as in California. AT&amp;T has been delayed in getting of the mark with video deployment in the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cofiann Hawthorne – advisor to governor, liaison between Governor and state agencies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Main focus is on bridging the digital gap, especially in 8 cities with highest poverty rates, also focused on workforce development and opening libraries to help citizens have BB access and apply for jobs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
[following comments are made by different participants at the meeting]:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looking very closely at Kentucky – admires its “feet to the ground” approach<br />
Bulk of Michigan homes can receive BB (AT&amp;T 75%, cable 90%, Verizon only 35%)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demand may not always be there to support BB investment. Many consumers feel that gas for their snowblowers is more important than BB connections.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Oakland County – one of 3d richest in the country – does not have BB in some places, is putting in its own wireless BB network. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Gov. also announced BB goal of 2007 (same as Pres. Bush)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BB Dev. Authority has used all its money, AT&amp;T/Verizon not as interested in the program&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act in 2002 helped to streamline process for using rights-of-way; created standard rate for compensating cities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In general, policy has shifted away from promoting competition to promoting BB build-out in unserved areas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is setting up “local collaboration groups” (?) to work with communities to get feet on the ground&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Anybody in Michigan can receive BB from satellite – a little more expensive, but it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
MIDEAL – state contracts for services from carriers, muni governments can purchase access to state services through the LinkMichigan contract. State network is with AT&amp;T, cities can choose to use state network or use it as leverage to negotiate a better rate from carriers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Biggest Barriers to BB deployment?:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. education – many consumers don’t understand the need for BB or the value of it, or don’t know that it is available.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
more and more carriers are choosing wireless as the least costly BB technology.<br />
<br />
Leadership comes from the Governor, who sets the agenda aligns the agencies priorities with hers. The governor has several agendas “Cities of Promise”-getting industrial cities onto the new economy.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries fit into many of these agendas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*In one city of promise, they are trying to re-open a closed library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Realizes they are a place to provide education&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan success factors include for broadband includes the hands-off approach the government has taken, bundling helping to lower prices (cost effective to add on broadband) and the evolution of technology to lower the cost&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Views barriers as customers not knowing what can be done w/ broadband, so not much demand out there. The other major barrier to broadband is money&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks they have been successful at broadband deployment, but difficult to gauge success. They think the government does a good job of promoting broadband through the broadband development authority (and the tax credit to telcos in exchange for them not shutting down the BDA)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
B&amp;M Gates Interventions&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Get as big of a pipe as possible &lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Show the value of libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
**get people in to use the pipe&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Upgrades in computers and hardware&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Education of librarians and patrons in broadband&lt;br/&gt;<br />
*Increase space in libraries for computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Challenges to more deployment includes multiple service providers, low ROI in some areas&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Thinks Gates foundation could encourage the service providers could deploy; thinks there is a way to incentivize the deployment (not sure what form this incentive would come in), and help with up-front costs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Chris Horak – Michigan Cable &amp; Telecom Assn.&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is deploying BB to 91% of homes at 5 – 10 Mbps speeds<br />
58% of homes can get telephone service over their cable systems. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sometimes cable companies provide free cable drops or cable modem drops into schools or libraries. Cable is likely to continue these connections voluntarily once the new video franchise law takes effect – good advertising.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The old days of asking for free service from the cable companies as a condition of franchise agreements have ended. Now policy-makers need to be more creative.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the time, cities’ entry into the telecom business is unwise. Cities forget the annual costs of running and maintaining a network, have limited expertise when the system goes down. The private carriers are much better at this. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t authority fell flat, lost $14.5 M, will lose $1 million more, in staff expenses. Also, the need was not there. Most loans were given in Lansing, Grand Rapids, other areas where 2 or 3 BB providers already existed. The market is working.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act has worked (standardized rights-of-way). Each city was charging different amounts for rights-of-way usage.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cable is not pursuing any legislative agenda right now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes best way is to bring all providers in together to work out solutions, perhaps using successful library consortiums to explain to rural libraries how to aggregate traffic.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;u&gt;Scott Stevenson - Telecommunications Association of Michigan<br />
Jon Peterson, AT&amp;T Michigan<br />
Donna Burke, AT&amp;T Michigan&lt;/u&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
TAM represents 36 of 38 telephone companies in Michigan (not Verizon)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Believes most companies are deploying BB, some to 100% of consumers. Demand is driving deployment, and companies are meeting that demand.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan is as competitive as any state in the country. Cites Air Advantage and WildBlue as competitive wireless BB providers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
There is no one policy change that has made a difference. Michigan has adopted a number of measures in the last few years that collectively improve the chances for investment in Michigan:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Michigan Telecom Act – which reduced regulatory oversight by PUC&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video Franchise Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Metro Act&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tax policy change – replaced an antiquated value-added tax with a depreciation table that saves the company substantial funds&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Demise of UNEP&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
AT&amp;T is steadily increasing its BB deployment because of these measures.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some cities are building their own networks, competing with AT&amp;T.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
State government should take a “stakeholder” approach – don’t tell the industry what to do, need to engage industry in a dialogue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
The BB Dev’t Authority created a huge scandal, a good example of what NOT to do.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom Association would be happy to engage in more dialogue with the libraries, suggested participating at each other’s conferences.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Key Recommendations:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
1. promote greater conversation, can help libraries identify their needs and help industry meet those needs&lt;br/&gt;<br />
2. libraries should have a technology plan, AT&amp;T is not willing to throw money at a problem until the library has a plan to use it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
3. provide an unbiased consultant to help libraries understand its needs.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Elaine Logan ==<br />
<br />
Elaine is the chair of the Library of Michigan Board of Trustees. By default she has had the longest running trustee. She is a special library background. Works for Phizer for 15 years, UM Dearborn and GM Lawyers.<br />
<br />
*Thinks that this type of research is critical for the <br />
*The disperate ways that libraries are funded make it less efficient and effective for them to get good connectivity<br />
*Are trustees knowledgeable?<br />
**Intellectually they know of the connectivity study, but there is not guarantee that they fully understand the problem<br />
**Not at the forefront of the legislature advocates minds<br />
**Works through the Governor and the Director of the HAL agency<br />
**Go to public hearings<br />
*Background on the board of trustees<br />
**We try and mix the board to have representation from all sorts of libraries (public, academic, special and school), legislator members and geographic represenations<br />
**State library focuses on public libraries and school (but academics and special still wants to partner)<br />
**Advisory board to state librarian and the director of HAL (state librarian). Does not supervise activities. Helps do reviews and select candidates.<br />
***Advise and investigate issues that are critical to the state libraries<br />
***But do not get into day to day management<br />
***Make proclamations and publish position statements, etc.<br />
**Appointed by governor<br />
**Does not have a mix of rural libraries, etc.<br />
**Primarily discusses libraries issues in general<br />
*How successful are the libraries are deployment?<br />
**Spotty and room for improvement (did not examine b4 call and asked us about focus group<br />
*How does the board assist?<br />
**Advises state lib on administering Gates and LSTA Grant<br />
**Provided resources once they get connected<br />
**Focus on getting content; not equipment and connections<br />
*How much priority do you place on broadband? Do you have a policy statement? Philosophy?<br />
**This would be possible, but given latest round of budget craziness (libraries recently experienced a 50% reduction<br />
**Gov. Granholm has a priority to build an educated workforce. <br />
**Connectivity to public libraries could be a part of Granholm’s plan<br />
*Do legislatures on library board have library background?<br />
**Most recent appointees are best that we have as far as getting them to be an advocate<br />
**In the past they have helped advocate and sponsor some activities<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Should be some great collaborative environment for public libraries where they can plug in at a low rate<br />
**Ways to tap into I2 and other networks for a faster speed</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kansas_State_Visit_Data&diff=2531Kansas State Visit Data2007-03-29T03:41:11Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Laura McClure, former State Legislator==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
627 incorporated communities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
75% of people live in small communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former legislator from 92 to 02. Served rural counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
On KanEd committee, also on Utilities Committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Special telecom committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom act 96 and KanEd was to give access to people in small towns access to the Internet. Make dial-up available through rural Kansas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools a big part. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries big for adults who don’t have computers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was to help do this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also to allow distance ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Statewide “ubiquitous” seamless, affordable service.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to get up to 56K.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kansas Corporation Commission that regulates all utilities called that “rural welfare”. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Was funding to help get 56K throughout the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Real tension between urban and rural. Urban didn’t care if rural got any service. Anything that gave rural subsidies.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed but didn’t happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many of the schools and libraries couldn’t afford what a teleco was “touting” as their package&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fiber to the doorstep in some areas now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BlueSkies satellite.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
“Can’t expect dial=up to every farmhouse in the country”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look for a document on the telecom act of 96 and it would have the statute. Look for Rainey Gilian could find it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynn Holt was the research person who worked on it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What steps are you taking (have you taken) to make this vision a reality?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was created.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to bring in all the players.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Good documentation on this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summer interim document&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libaries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospials&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cities and counties??&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed. Took several years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Argued over where funding would come from.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Two other legislators&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Carl Holmes, House Rep&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sen. Jay Emler, owns a telecom operation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General idea of KanED was because did not see a lot of progress from the telecom act.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd came out of this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Wanted interconnectedness and opportunity at a reasonable price across the whole state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talked to some who were not real pleased with how it turned out.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Original purpose of KAnEd was local providers would work with KAnEd to provide at a reasonable cost, partially through KUSF funding. Just give grants, not broker prices.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Does KUSF $$ go to library or to teleco?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Didn’t even think of asking KanED to negotiate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not sure how all the details were actually implemented.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not familiar with I2.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talk to Ft. Hayes about distance education. Have students in China and Istanbul. Use a lot of technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cindy Eliot is in charge of China program.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What is taking (has taken) the lead in bringing this about?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Laura was the ranking democrat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of “drivenness” came out of this committee.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Combination of legislative initiative and someone bringing it to them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Can’t remember.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
After telecom 96 that didn’t work, wanted to find something that would.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. How successful have you been so far?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look at website to see who has signed on.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Only a few public libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nex tec rural telco provides BB.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In her town, Osborn, public library only has 3or 4 computers and they are old.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians are overwhelmed with everything they are doing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Previous librarian was not a computer person. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
In many of smaller communities that have older librarians, the training piece is huge. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
If nobody know how to run them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Why so few libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians overwhelmed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Should KAnEd reach out to these libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Assumed they would since they had the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could have provided training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looks like from the list they have reached out to the schools.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What barriers are you encountering in your efforts to establish a successful broadband network?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers local libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lack of trained librarians, many are unpaid volunteers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General public, if don’t know what KAnEd or high speed network is and does, then they don’t push for it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Where the libraries are connected, there was a champion at the library who went after KanEd connection.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Her library is a hotspot so people bring their own.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Frustration a barrier. Librarians got excited and then it didn’t happen. Hit a brick wall and gave up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What role do you see for public libraries in your state’s broadband vision?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
If they are connected and part of KanEd,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They library has to let the community know what it has to offer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trying to bring economic development back to the community. Need a broadband connection to do that.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Library has to let community know they have high speed. Library is in the middle of everything if connected.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Techie generation is in the schools. If connectivity not in schools than have to have it in the libraries to give equal opportunity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. Is the state librarian involved in your work to implement high speed broadband access? (Ask if it seems appropriate)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane was involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane testified.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the drive came from the legislators.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. What might the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do to help local public libraries get high speed connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Endowment fund to put some money in and encourage other foundations to invest. Use income from endowment fund to pay telecom costs. Would help KanEd in the future.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ksbluehills@ruraltel.net<br />
<br />
==Interview With Kansas State Library Staff==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Rhonda Machlin – resource sharing specialist&lt;br/&gt;Patti Butcher - Statewide Resource Sharing&lt;br/&gt;Roy Bird - LSTA coordinator&lt;br/&gt;Eric Gustafson – techn&lt;br/&gt;Marc Galbraith = Deputy state library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T-1 for every library including branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Still have many libraries on dial-up&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ability to use more virtual content instead of having physical content in the library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Be able to take advantage of digital resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many projects directly impacted by less bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Moving toward a hybrid catalog. Database of records plus actual live catalogs. Real time connections with local catalogs. As they make changes in catalog, happens automatically.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Overdrive audio books and more. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Customers can’t get these at local libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Business titles&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Language studies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Heaviest use is fiction but also non-fiction.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Homework Kansas, kids can’t get homework help.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Videos – sign language instruction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video-conferencing – not enough bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Self-initiated ILL. Can be done without high speed but takes quite the work to verify patrons.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Access to databases. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most just want to get to Heritage Quest&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. Barriers to high speed connectivity in Kansas&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telco’s&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lobby against KanEd providing last mile&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Turf wars between cable and telcos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
More cooperation between public library and school district or public library and community college&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Like to see aggregation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Different government structureare a barrier&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some have made an effort to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians and library boards who don’t see the need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Don’t understand what’s out there – education issue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some libraries get free internet from cable. Just take what they can get, not what they need.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Operate same way they budget. – see what they get and then use rather than this is what we need and then get it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NO vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Number of small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. How can these barriers be overcome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A statewide training initiative&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But many training initiatives are based on BB access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
”They” Need a statewide vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But bigger than libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In library community, library leadership&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KSL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KLA&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
School libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need an individual standard bearer. This is where I would like to see the state go. Should be Christie.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Just study and study issues and by the time make a decision, the moment has past.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Part of problem is inertia.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When KanEd first passed, thought it would be answer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Why did KanEd fail?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision of the person who headed it up, was different than what proposed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Partnership was with schools, higher ed, and hospitals. Each needs something a little bit different.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They are not getting high speed either.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have 800 members but less than 300 are connected. Most are academic and school districts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some of these have high speed networking through KanREn.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. Who at the table in planning for high speed broadband&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In local communities, groups that could work together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HighED&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospitals ?? but they are problematic&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trustees – have to be involved to share vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need some carrots and sticks&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have had standards for libraries but more suggestions than standards.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional cooperatives would cooperate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Problem is there is nothing to get behind. No vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Means switching priorities among systems. They have the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision is important because they don’t see what’s coming next.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What might the Gates Foundation do to help?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help develop the vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help libraries with erate – lot of libraries that don’t apply because of paperwork.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of small libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Kansas DISC==<br />
<br />
Denies Moore, the Chief Information Technology Officer (Executive Branch) who heads the Division of Information Systems and Communications met with us during our visit.<br />
<br />
*Kan-Win Network Description<br />
**Kansas Wide Information Network (Kan-Win) is a network for state agencies<br />
**Department of information Systems oversee the network<br />
***Through the Bureau of Telecommunications<br />
**Network that supports 625 sites<br />
**Backbone runs between Topeka, Kansas City and Wichetaw<br />
***Centered in Topeka—where it connects the entities to the Internet<br />
**Has negotiated a postalized rate for T1s, with most running back to Topeka<br />
**Topeka is connected via fiber-optic Metro Area Network (using Ethernet)<br />
**Recently moved from a 40 Mbps backbone to OC3<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service—each agency pays DISC for the services it receives over Kan-Win<br />
**That way, the agencies that receive federal funding can use the money to pay for connection<br />
**This also forces Kan-Win to be run efficiently, otherwise agencies would go elsewhere for cheaper service<br />
*Governance<br />
**Governance lies at the secretary of administration<br />
**But in actuality is given to DISC <br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Aggregate demand<br />
***Allows for maximization of funding and efficiency<br />
***Centralized service also cuts down on overhead (each agency doesn’t have to have WAN expert)<br />
**Centralized agency to negotiate w/ telcos (they are experts at it and individual agencies don’t have to have this expertise on staff)<br />
**Manage all the local loops<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Diversity of customers makes it difficult to keep them satisfied<br />
**Building the infrastructure to keep up with the demand<br />
***Keeping in touch with customers to etermine what they are doing that will require increasing the bandwidth<br />
*Adequate Bandwidth<br />
**In Topeka, not too much to worry about because of fiber network<br />
**For others they monitor the throughput<br />
**Determines what is available<br />
**Bumps up as necessary<br />
**But also aggregates as possible<br />
***E.g. instead of getting fractional T1s in an office buildings w/ multiple agencies, they will get a full T1 and charge for utilization<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increase funding to public libraries to help pay for connections<br />
**Increase their ability to work w/ local providers<br />
**State-wide plan to help libraries get connected &amp; understand what is available to them<br />
**Need help defining and developing a plan of action<br />
***Understand where they fit in their communities<br />
**Support for E-Rate<br />
**Help libraries make use of the services available to them<br />
<br />
==Justin Mcclure==<br />
<br />
Justin is from Next-Tech.<br />
<br />
*About Next Tech<br />
**Nex-Tech is a de-regulated company a CLEC that is owned by an ILEC Rural Telecom<br />
**Also provides Cable T<br />
**Fixed Wireless, DSL and Cable Modem<br />
<br />
*State of Broadband in their area<br />
**The digital divide is a myth. They provide connectivity to towns as small as 100 people to get it out to <br />
**in areas where no wireline, they provide wireless<br />
**83% of their customers <br />
**Partners w/ Wildblue to get 100% of their customers available<br />
**Territory is NW Kansas<br />
**Building fiber to the home in some of the markets IPTV<br />
**Follows NECA tariffs in some of the rural areas (in ILEC areas) for pricing <br />
*Who is the leader?<br />
**Them-They had DSL starting in 1996 when they were formed<br />
*Impedements to growing their footprint<br />
**Competition-already one or two providers where they want to go<br />
***Acquires some of the smaller companies to be one of those <br />
**Not many towns left that are unserved<br />
**Distance from telephone switch office—they do everything they can to get them connected<br />
*State involvement<br />
**Not @ all…<br />
**Grants from federal government <br />
***RUS<br />
*Government regulation<br />
**Data retention laws would impede their deployment, but for the most part, they are unregulated<br />
*Rights of way<br />
**Controlled to munincipalities<br />
**Does make it more difficult then it could be<br />
**Municipalities ‘overextended’ their requests<br />
*Statewide video franchise<br />
**Kansas has passed video franchise<br />
**Next IT state-wide franchise passed, but they plan to continue to work w/ cities<br />
*Backbone<br />
**No problems at all Connection w/ AT&amp;T and redundant w/ Sprint. <br />
**Lease fiber to get back to Topeka for AT&amp;T and sprint to Kansas City<br />
**Looking into redundant connection w/ Cox<br />
*Libraries<br />
**Just viewed them as regular customers<br />
***Connects 19 (13 LEC 6 in CLEC)<br />
**They provide wi-fi hot-spot <br />
**Most interaction w/ libraries is by the sales guys who are selling the services <br />
*BM&amp; G Interventions<br />
**Internet paid for completely<br />
**Helping them to fill out paperwork to get connection<br />
**Educate them to use services and <br />
**Figure out a way to have an ongoing funding mechanism<br />
***Bigger ones do not have as much funding issues as some of the smaller ones<br />
**Figure out how to connect libraries to Kan-Ed<br />
***Company does connect some organizations <br />
***No libraries have requested to join Kan-Ed<br />
***Thinks it got pushed out quickly with hype an fanfare…they thought it would be a good idea, but enough places have been connected and no differentiation <br />
*How do you define<br />
**Some 256k, but will be 512k down; plans up to 6 mb over DSL and wireless<br />
<br />
==Kan-Ed==<br />
<br />
Linda, Mark and Christie met with Brad Williams. Brad is the CIO of the Kansas board of regents and the interim director of Kan-Ed. He was involved w/ Kan-Ed at it’s inception.<br />
<br />
*History of Kan-Ed<br />
**The idea for the network started around 1999-2000, but the bill failed<br />
**Task force formed and had a report---authorized in 2001; funded in 2002<br />
**Legislation had restrictions put in place to compromise w/ telcso<br />
***No VOIP could go across the backbone<br />
***Couldn’t impair current contracts<br />
***Has lost its focus---the network was formed for distance learning<br />
*Backbone<br />
**Legislation authorizes them to connect to commercial network <br />
***However, as a policy decision Kan-Ed does not<br />
**Therefore, the backbone is for private, intra-state communications only<br />
**Backbone is an OC-3 connection<br />
***which is leased from a variety of providers including Cox Cable, AT&amp;T, Sprint (Embark) depending on which part of the state the backbone is running<br />
**Backbone is only used for video conferencing and connection to I2<br />
***Would like it to be used more for data transfer<br />
**Only 39 libraries connect to the backbone<br />
***MB Note: 25 of these libraries are connected b/c they are connected to Kan-Ren and they get to the Kan-Ed backbone through a peering arrangement<br />
**No standards on how entities connect—just that they do<br />
*Subsidy<br />
**In addition to operating backbone, they provide 100 libraries with 100% of Internet connectivity costs (up to $3000)<br />
***This subsidy is before E-Rate and so libraries will apply for Kan-Ed money and not file E-Rate app<br />
***Kan-Ed gives them subsidy, but it is up to libraries to contract for connectivity<br />
*Other Services<br />
**Database subscriptions<br />
**Purchase of portals to help kids surf the net safely<br />
**Other grant programs for members (90% of libs are members)<br />
*Funding<br />
**Started w/ $10 million from KUSF<br />
**Is now $8 million KUSF and $2 million general revenue<br />
***Was supposed to scale back off of KUSF, but now they are stopping at this figure<br />
**E-Rate<br />
***Applies for telecomm E-Rate yearly (for several million dollars)<br />
**Also provides toll free e-rate support to members<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Assistance w/ E-Rate apps<br />
**Assistance w/ telco negotiations<br />
**Help w/ LAN implementations<br />
<br />
==Don Moler==<br />
<br />
Don Moler is the Executive Director of the League of Kansas Municipalities. He met with us to discuss broadband deployment<br />
<br />
*Background on cities<br />
**No vision for broadband deployment<br />
**626 incorporated in Kansas<br />
**Larger cities are OK as far as deployment<br />
**Cities with population of under 10,000 (of which there are 600) may have difficulty<br />
**Respondent wishes there were a government initiative for broadband<br />
***There is a large mix of providers<br />
***Some cities have satellite broadband<br />
***Some cities have cable ISPs<br />
**Had a fight w/ AT&amp;T over video franchising<br />
***Wanted to local cities to maintain the rights of way and franchise fe<br />
***And to provision for build out requirements<br />
**Cable companies are the dominant provider of broadband<br />
*Vision for deployment <br />
**League of cities is an information broker<br />
***City to state<br />
***State to city<br />
**Want is deployed to 100% of the state<br />
**Not much is being deployed right now<br />
**Municipalities can over broadband (and some do via public boards)<br />
***League kills bills that seek to curb these offerings<br />
*Where to libraries fall into his vision<br />
**Libraries are part of city government<br />
**Part of the tax levy of cities<br />
**hence, sort of on their radar<br />
**MB Note: he seems quite willing to work w/ Christie whereas he may have had less than cordial relations w/ previous state librarian<br />
*Barriers to deployment<br />
**AT&amp;T not willing to build<br />
**Distance cost factor<br />
*State not mandating deployment<br />
**Strong sentiment in the state for anti-taxation<br />
**Feeling that government = bad; business = good<br />
**Trying to bring everyone to the table is hard<br />
**There is a dichotomy whereby some are well connected and others aren’t<br />
***4 or 5 rich counties in east KS that has 1/3 of the population and is fairly high tech vs. areas of the state where low pop density and low tech<br />
**AT&amp;T has a huge lobby of 50 people for 165 legislatures<br />
**Cable wants little to no competition<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Link deployment to economic development<br />
**Formation of a public private partnership to get issues on the table to ensure needs are met<br />
***Have an independent consultant (one with no stake and that does not show favoritism to any one entity to bring the following to the table:<br />
***Libraries, K12, Higher Ed, Local Government, State Agencies, Governor, Legislature, local municipalities, counties<br />
<br />
==Senator Brownlee==<br />
<br />
Senator Brownlee was instrumental in the formation of the Kan-Ed network and, as of recently, is not pleased with the results of the project<br />
<br />
*Perception of Kan-ed<br />
**Expressed disappointment that Kan-Ed has not done more<br />
**Wanted to have 75% of libraries, schools and hospitals connected by 2004<br />
***But Kan-Ed interpreted it as connecting 75% of those requesting and didn’t make the goal<br />
**THer are libraries appealing to get on, but not connected<br />
**Does not understand why more libraries aren’t connected<br />
**Paid for out of the Kansas Universal Service Fund (KUSF)<br />
***Senator Brownlee was trying to figure out how to use the fund and had this idea<br />
**Funded @ $10 million per year<br />
**Her vision was to have an entitity with buying power to help w/ negotiations<br />
**Her perception was that Kan-Ed should not have negotiated individual contracts<br />
***Rather, they should have waited to sign contracts until all were signed<br />
***Wanted all to be on a common platform (is not a techie so not sure what that means)<br />
**Kan-Ed purchases databases<br />
***But databases are available on commercial internet, so no incentive to join Kan Ed to access these databases<br />
***MB Note: Seemed to want to force libs to join Kan-Ed backbone in order to get databases<br />
*One perception she has was that the smaller telcos invest before the larger ones<br />
*Is considering merger of networks<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Rural Telemedicine<br />
**Economic Development<br />
**Increase collaboration and bring people to the table<br />
<br />
==Kan-Ren==<br />
<br />
Doug Heacock is the Executive Director of Kan-Ren (the Kansas Research and Education Network) who came to Topeka to meet with us.<br />
<br />
*Overview<br />
**KanRen is the education and research network<br />
**501(c)3 Non-profit<br />
**Funded by membership fee and fees for service<br />
**Connects Universities, Community Colleges, Public Schools and Libraries<br />
**Has 50 members w/ 70 connected sites<br />
*Libraries<br />
**Connects 26 Libraries<br />
**5 libraries independent of the co-op <br />
***They pay full membership fee and for connection<br />
**21 through the Northeast Kansas Library System (NEKLS)<br />
***NEKLS pays full membership fee<br />
***Libraries pay reduced membership fee b/c NEKLS is their primary tech support provider<br />
***Run line from POP to NEKLS then from NEKLS to libraries<br />
***Some connect directly to the Kansas City POP b/c it is cheaper to run the circuit<br />
*History<br />
**Started around ’93 w/ a NSF connections grant<br />
**Connected institutions for free using grant and started charging when grant ran out<br />
**Changed connection policy when grant ran out to allow other institutions to connect<br />
*Services they provide<br />
**Negotiates w/ telco for last mile<br />
**Provides backbone<br />
***POPs arranged in a star with Lawrence in the middle connecting to Lawrence, Witchetaw, and two other sites<br />
***Backbone leased from by Cox Cable and AT&amp;T<br />
***Backbone connects to Internet at Kansas City (provided by Qwest) and in Wichetaw (bought by Cox)<br />
***Connects to great plains Internet2 POP from Kansas City<br />
***Is considering an upgrade to a ring backbone<br />
**Internet2 Access (if the qualify)<br />
**Tech Support and Training<br />
**Network Operations<br />
**QoS, IPv6 and multicast<br />
**Video conferencing<br />
**Note: runs Kan-ed backbone, too<br />
*Governance<br />
**501(c)3 overseen by board of directors<br />
*Funding<br />
**Members pay fee based on size<br />
**Members pay for telco circuit<br />
***Kan-Ren will help negotiate w/ telcos and will manage the circuit, but members must pay for it<br />
***Libraries apply for E-Rate on their own<br />
*Dream (b4 Kan-ed, but still maybe possible)<br />
**Have all 7 library consortiums join<br />
**Only needs to put together $$$<br />
**Last mile is the most difficult<br />
***Especially for libs w/ small budge<br />
**Kan-ed<br />
***only interested in Backbone and subsidies<br />
***Not in providing last mile or internet access<br />
**Thinks the state should step up and invest money to help libraries get connected<br />
*Frank Discussion of Kan-Ed<br />
**Thinks it uses a lot of money with no results<br />
**Kan Ren operates on an annual budget of $3 million<br />
***$1 million of which it gets to operate Kan-Eds backbone and provide tech support<br />
**Funding for Kan-Ed is at $10 million annually ($40 million in the last 4 years exceeds what Kan-Ren has gotten in 14 years)<br />
**In some cases the Kan-Ed connection goes to one room in a school district for video conferencing<br />
**Thinks they are more of an advocate for telcos then the end user<br />
**Kan-ed has an OC3 backbone at 3% utilization and some sections remain connected but unused<br />
**Lots of Network access Points, but not many are used<br />
**Kan-Ren could absorb all the traffic on Kan-Eds backbone and barely notice<br />
**Kan-Ren may absorb the backbone traffic, which would allow the backbone to be shut down<br />
***Internet providers profit margin is at the Internet connection—not in the circuit, so if Kan-ed were to get in the ISP business, telcos margins would shrink if Kan-Ren were to offer Internet to those connecting from Kan-Ed entity<br />
****Note: very few libs connect to only Kan-Ed (about 12); the rest connect to Kan-Ren and gain access to Kan-Ed backbone through peering arrangment<br />
***For Kan-Ren telcos know they won’t get any internet mark-up, so charges accordingly<br />
***Thinks the telcos would block funding @ state if Kan-Ed became an ISP<br />
*Success factors<br />
**Success because they provide reliability, tech support<br />
***Consdiers their staff an extension of members tech support, so that members don’t need to employ WAN engineers, they can just call Kan-Ren<br />
**Thinks they do the best job possible, both financially and technically<br />
**Adaptability-the environment has changed, but they persist when other ISPs didn’t<br />
**Hiring good people<br />
**Transparency-members know everything that happens<br />
***They believe in the right solution, not the cheapest<br />
***Therefore could not underbid a telco but thinks they provide better service<br />
**Developed Expertise<br />
<br />
*Barriers<br />
**No state appropriations-a blessing and a curse<br />
**Some potential members can’t justify the extra cost of belonging to Kan-Ren<br />
**If no membership, they could be more competitive<br />
***But membership fee is where they get the money to pay their staff and provide training and tech support<br />
**Overbuilds a bit, which incurs a bit of extra cost, which is passed on to members (but provides them with sufficient bandwidth out to Internet<br />
****Currently provides 750 Mbps out to commodity Internet but only 650 Mbps is ever used<br />
*How they allocate bandwidth<br />
**Assumptions based upon # of workstations and expected usage of workstations<br />
**Empirically based<br />
**What applications they know their clients will run<br />
**No good formula, but monitors closely<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Intervention<br />
**Thinks the biggest barrier to more broadband is recurring costs<br />
***There are some fixed costs, but those are small comparatively<br />
**Thinks the state should view broadband the same as roads-&gt; everyone needs it<br />
**Provide seed money for first few years and once they are hooked, libraries will figure out how to pay for it<br />
***once there is a community, they will</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kansas_State_Visit_Data&diff=2530Kansas State Visit Data2007-03-29T02:44:26Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Laura McClure, former State Legislator==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
627 incorporated communities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
75% of people live in small communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former legislator from 92 to 02. Served rural counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
On KanEd committee, also on Utilities Committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Special telecom committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom act 96 and KanEd was to give access to people in small towns access to the Internet. Make dial-up available through rural Kansas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools a big part. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries big for adults who don’t have computers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was to help do this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also to allow distance ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Statewide “ubiquitous” seamless, affordable service.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to get up to 56K.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kansas Corporation Commission that regulates all utilities called that “rural welfare”. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Was funding to help get 56K throughout the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Real tension between urban and rural. Urban didn’t care if rural got any service. Anything that gave rural subsidies.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed but didn’t happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many of the schools and libraries couldn’t afford what a teleco was “touting” as their package&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fiber to the doorstep in some areas now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BlueSkies satellite.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
“Can’t expect dial=up to every farmhouse in the country”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look for a document on the telecom act of 96 and it would have the statute. Look for Rainey Gilian could find it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynn Holt was the research person who worked on it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What steps are you taking (have you taken) to make this vision a reality?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was created.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to bring in all the players.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Good documentation on this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summer interim document&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libaries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospials&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cities and counties??&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed. Took several years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Argued over where funding would come from.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Two other legislators&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Carl Holmes, House Rep&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sen. Jay Emler, owns a telecom operation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General idea of KanED was because did not see a lot of progress from the telecom act.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd came out of this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Wanted interconnectedness and opportunity at a reasonable price across the whole state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talked to some who were not real pleased with how it turned out.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Original purpose of KAnEd was local providers would work with KAnEd to provide at a reasonable cost, partially through KUSF funding. Just give grants, not broker prices.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Does KUSF $$ go to library or to teleco?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Didn’t even think of asking KanED to negotiate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not sure how all the details were actually implemented.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not familiar with I2.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talk to Ft. Hayes about distance education. Have students in China and Istanbul. Use a lot of technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cindy Eliot is in charge of China program.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What is taking (has taken) the lead in bringing this about?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Laura was the ranking democrat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of “drivenness” came out of this committee.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Combination of legislative initiative and someone bringing it to them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Can’t remember.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
After telecom 96 that didn’t work, wanted to find something that would.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. How successful have you been so far?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look at website to see who has signed on.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Only a few public libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nex tec rural telco provides BB.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In her town, Osborn, public library only has 3or 4 computers and they are old.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians are overwhelmed with everything they are doing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Previous librarian was not a computer person. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
In many of smaller communities that have older librarians, the training piece is huge. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
If nobody know how to run them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Why so few libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians overwhelmed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Should KAnEd reach out to these libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Assumed they would since they had the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could have provided training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looks like from the list they have reached out to the schools.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What barriers are you encountering in your efforts to establish a successful broadband network?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers local libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lack of trained librarians, many are unpaid volunteers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General public, if don’t know what KAnEd or high speed network is and does, then they don’t push for it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Where the libraries are connected, there was a champion at the library who went after KanEd connection.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Her library is a hotspot so people bring their own.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Frustration a barrier. Librarians got excited and then it didn’t happen. Hit a brick wall and gave up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What role do you see for public libraries in your state’s broadband vision?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
If they are connected and part of KanEd,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They library has to let the community know what it has to offer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trying to bring economic development back to the community. Need a broadband connection to do that.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Library has to let community know they have high speed. Library is in the middle of everything if connected.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Techie generation is in the schools. If connectivity not in schools than have to have it in the libraries to give equal opportunity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. Is the state librarian involved in your work to implement high speed broadband access? (Ask if it seems appropriate)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane was involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane testified.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the drive came from the legislators.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. What might the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do to help local public libraries get high speed connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Endowment fund to put some money in and encourage other foundations to invest. Use income from endowment fund to pay telecom costs. Would help KanEd in the future.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ksbluehills@ruraltel.net<br />
<br />
==Interview With Kansas State Library Staff==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Rhonda Machlin – resource sharing specialist&lt;br/&gt;Patti Butcher - Statewide Resource Sharing&lt;br/&gt;Roy Bird - LSTA coordinator&lt;br/&gt;Eric Gustafson – techn&lt;br/&gt;Marc Galbraith = Deputy state library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T-1 for every library including branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Still have many libraries on dial-up&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ability to use more virtual content instead of having physical content in the library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Be able to take advantage of digital resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many projects directly impacted by less bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Moving toward a hybrid catalog. Database of records plus actual live catalogs. Real time connections with local catalogs. As they make changes in catalog, happens automatically.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Overdrive audio books and more. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Customers can’t get these at local libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Business titles&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Language studies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Heaviest use is fiction but also non-fiction.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Homework Kansas, kids can’t get homework help.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Videos – sign language instruction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video-conferencing – not enough bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Self-initiated ILL. Can be done without high speed but takes quite the work to verify patrons.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Access to databases. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most just want to get to Heritage Quest&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. Barriers to high speed connectivity in Kansas&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telco’s&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lobby against KanEd providing last mile&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Turf wars between cable and telcos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
More cooperation between public library and school district or public library and community college&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Like to see aggregation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Different government structureare a barrier&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some have made an effort to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians and library boards who don’t see the need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Don’t understand what’s out there – education issue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some libraries get free internet from cable. Just take what they can get, not what they need.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Operate same way they budget. – see what they get and then use rather than this is what we need and then get it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NO vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Number of small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. How can these barriers be overcome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A statewide training initiative&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But many training initiatives are based on BB access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
”They” Need a statewide vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But bigger than libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In library community, library leadership&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KSL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KLA&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
School libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need an individual standard bearer. This is where I would like to see the state go. Should be Christie.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Just study and study issues and by the time make a decision, the moment has past.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Part of problem is inertia.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When KanEd first passed, thought it would be answer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Why did KanEd fail?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision of the person who headed it up, was different than what proposed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Partnership was with schools, higher ed, and hospitals. Each needs something a little bit different.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They are not getting high speed either.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have 800 members but less than 300 are connected. Most are academic and school districts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some of these have high speed networking through KanREn.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. Who at the table in planning for high speed broadband&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In local communities, groups that could work together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HighED&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospitals ?? but they are problematic&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trustees – have to be involved to share vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need some carrots and sticks&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have had standards for libraries but more suggestions than standards.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional cooperatives would cooperate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Problem is there is nothing to get behind. No vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Means switching priorities among systems. They have the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision is important because they don’t see what’s coming next.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What might the Gates Foundation do to help?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help develop the vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help libraries with erate – lot of libraries that don’t apply because of paperwork.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of small libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Kansas DISC==<br />
<br />
Denies Moore, the Chief Information Technology Officer (Executive Branch) who heads the Division of Information Systems and Communications met with us during our visit.<br />
<br />
*Kan-Win Network Description<br />
**Kansas Wide Information Network (Kan-Win) is a network for state agencies<br />
**Department of information Systems oversee the network<br />
***Through the Bureau of Telecommunications<br />
**Network that supports 625 sites<br />
**Backbone runs between Topeka, Kansas City and Wichetaw<br />
***Centered in Topeka—where it connects the entities to the Internet<br />
**Has negotiated a postalized rate for T1s, with most running back to Topeka<br />
**Topeka is connected via fiber-optic Metro Area Network (using Ethernet)<br />
**Recently moved from a 40 Mbps backbone to OC3<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service—each agency pays DISC for the services it receives over Kan-Win<br />
**That way, the agencies that receive federal funding can use the money to pay for connection<br />
**This also forces Kan-Win to be run efficiently, otherwise agencies would go elsewhere for cheaper service<br />
*Governance<br />
**Governance lies at the secretary of administration<br />
**But in actuality is given to DISC <br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Aggregate demand<br />
***Allows for maximization of funding and efficiency<br />
***Centralized service also cuts down on overhead (each agency doesn’t have to have WAN expert)<br />
**Centralized agency to negotiate w/ telcos (they are experts at it and individual agencies don’t have to have this expertise on staff)<br />
**Manage all the local loops<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Diversity of customers makes it difficult to keep them satisfied<br />
**Building the infrastructure to keep up with the demand<br />
***Keeping in touch with customers to etermine what they are doing that will require increasing the bandwidth<br />
*Adequate Bandwidth<br />
**In Topeka, not too much to worry about because of fiber network<br />
**For others they monitor the throughput<br />
**Determines what is available<br />
**Bumps up as necessary<br />
**But also aggregates as possible<br />
***E.g. instead of getting fractional T1s in an office buildings w/ multiple agencies, they will get a full T1 and charge for utilization<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increase funding to public libraries to help pay for connections<br />
**Increase their ability to work w/ local providers<br />
**State-wide plan to help libraries get connected &amp; understand what is available to them<br />
**Need help defining and developing a plan of action<br />
***Understand where they fit in their communities<br />
**Support for E-Rate<br />
**Help libraries make use of the services available to them<br />
<br />
==Justin Mcclure==<br />
<br />
Justin is from Next-Tech.<br />
<br />
*About Next Tech<br />
**Nex-Tech is a de-regulated company a CLEC that is owned by an ILEC Rural Telecom<br />
**Also provides Cable T<br />
**Fixed Wireless, DSL and Cable Modem<br />
<br />
*State of Broadband in their area<br />
**The digital divide is a myth. They provide connectivity to towns as small as 100 people to get it out to <br />
**in areas where no wireline, they provide wireless<br />
**83% of their customers <br />
**Partners w/ Wildblue to get 100% of their customers available<br />
**Territory is NW Kansas<br />
**Building fiber to the home in some of the markets IPTV<br />
**Follows NECA tariffs in some of the rural areas (in ILEC areas) for pricing <br />
*Who is the leader?<br />
**Them-They had DSL starting in 1996 when they were formed<br />
*Impedements to growing their footprint<br />
**Competition-already one or two providers where they want to go<br />
***Acquires some of the smaller companies to be one of those <br />
**Not many towns left that are unserved<br />
**Distance from telephone switch office—they do everything they can to get them connected<br />
*State involvement<br />
**Not @ all…<br />
**Grants from federal government <br />
***RUS<br />
*Government regulation<br />
**Data retention laws would impede their deployment, but for the most part, they are unregulated<br />
*Rights of way<br />
**Controlled to munincipalities<br />
**Does make it more difficult then it could be<br />
**Municipalities ‘overextended’ their requests<br />
*Statewide video franchise<br />
**Kansas has passed video franchise<br />
**Next IT state-wide franchise passed, but they plan to continue to work w/ cities<br />
*Backbone<br />
**No problems at all Connection w/ AT&amp;T and redundant w/ Sprint. <br />
**Lease fiber to get back to Topeka for AT&amp;T and sprint to Kansas City<br />
**Looking into redundant connection w/ Cox<br />
*Libraries<br />
**Just viewed them as regular customers<br />
***Connects 19 (13 LEC 6 in CLEC)<br />
**They provide wi-fi hot-spot <br />
**Most interaction w/ libraries is by the sales guys who are selling the services <br />
*BM&amp; G Interventions<br />
**Internet paid for completely<br />
**Helping them to fill out paperwork to get connection<br />
**Educate them to use services and <br />
**Figure out a way to have an ongoing funding mechanism<br />
***Bigger ones do not have as much funding issues as some of the smaller ones<br />
**Figure out how to connect libraries to Kan-Ed<br />
***Company does connect some organizations <br />
***No libraries have requested to join Kan-Ed<br />
***Thinks it got pushed out quickly with hype an fanfare…they thought it would be a good idea, but enough places have been connected and no differentiation <br />
*How do you define<br />
**Some 256k, but will be 512k down; plans up to 6 mb over DSL and wireless<br />
<br />
==Kan-Ed==<br />
<br />
Linda, Mark and Christie met with Brad Williams. Brad is the CIO of the Kansas board of regents and the interim director of Kan-Ed. He was involved w/ Kan-Ed at it’s inception.<br />
<br />
*History of Kan-Ed<br />
**The idea for the network started around 1999-2000, but the bill failed<br />
**Task force formed and had a report---authorized in 2001; funded in 2002<br />
**Legislation had restrictions put in place to compromise w/ telcso<br />
***No VOIP could go across the backbone<br />
***Couldn’t impair current contracts<br />
***Has lost its focus---the network was formed for distance learning<br />
*Backbone<br />
**Legislation authorizes them to connect to commercial network <br />
***However, as a policy decision Kan-Ed does not<br />
**Therefore, the backbone is for private, intra-state communications only<br />
**Backbone is an OC-3 connection<br />
***which is leased from a variety of providers including Cox Cable, AT&amp;T, Sprint (Embark) depending on which part of the state the backbone is running<br />
**Backbone is only used for video conferencing and connection to I2<br />
***Would like it to be used more for data transfer<br />
**Only 39 libraries connect to the backbone<br />
***MB Note: 25 of these libraries are connected b/c they are connected to Kan-Ren and they get to the Kan-Ed backbone through a peering arrangement<br />
**No standards on how entities connect—just that they do<br />
*Subsidy<br />
**In addition to operating backbone, they provide 100 libraries with 100% of Internet connectivity costs (up to $3000)<br />
***This subsidy is before E-Rate and so libraries will apply for Kan-Ed money and not file E-Rate app<br />
***Kan-Ed gives them subsidy, but it is up to libraries to contract for connectivity<br />
*Other Services<br />
**Database subscriptions<br />
**Purchase of portals to help kids surf the net safely<br />
**Other grant programs for members (90% of libs are members)<br />
*Funding<br />
**Started w/ $10 million from KUSF<br />
**Is now $8 million KUSF and $2 million general revenue<br />
***Was supposed to scale back off of KUSF, but now they are stopping at this figure<br />
**E-Rate<br />
***Applies for telecomm E-Rate yearly (for several million dollars)<br />
**Also provides toll free e-rate support to members<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Assistance w/ E-Rate apps<br />
**Assistance w/ telco negotiations<br />
**Help w/ LAN implementations<br />
<br />
==Don Moler==<br />
<br />
Don Moler is the Executive Director of the League of Kansas Municipalities. He met with us to discuss broadband deployment<br />
<br />
*Background on cities<br />
**No vision for broadband deployment<br />
**626 incorporated in Kansas<br />
**Larger cities are OK as far as deployment<br />
**Cities with population of under 10,000 (of which there are 600) may have difficulty<br />
**Respondent wishes there were a government initiative for broadband<br />
***There is a large mix of providers<br />
***Some cities have satellite broadband<br />
***Some cities have cable ISPs<br />
**Had a fight w/ AT&amp;T over video franchising<br />
***Wanted to local cities to maintain the rights of way and franchise fe<br />
***And to provision for build out requirements<br />
**Cable companies are the dominant provider of broadband<br />
*Vision for deployment <br />
**League of cities is an information broker<br />
***City to state<br />
***State to city<br />
**Want is deployed to 100% of the state<br />
**Not much is being deployed right now<br />
**Municipalities can over broadband (and some do via public boards)<br />
***League kills bills that seek to curb these offerings<br />
*Where to libraries fall into his vision<br />
**Libraries are part of city government<br />
**Part of the tax levy of cities<br />
**hence, sort of on their radar<br />
**MB Note: he seems quite willing to work w/ Christie whereas he may have had less than cordial relations w/ previous state librarian<br />
*Barriers to deployment<br />
**AT&amp;T not willing to build<br />
**Distance cost factor<br />
*State not mandating deployment<br />
**Strong sentiment in the state for anti-taxation<br />
**Feeling that government = bad; business = good<br />
**Trying to bring everyone to the table is hard<br />
**There is a dichotomy whereby some are well connected and others aren’t<br />
***4 or 5 rich counties in east KS that has 1/3 of the population and is fairly high tech vs. areas of the state where low pop density and low tech<br />
**AT&amp;T has a huge lobby of 50 people for 165 legislatures<br />
**Cable wants little to no competition<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Link deployment to economic development<br />
**Formation of a public private partnership to get issues on the table to ensure needs are met<br />
***Have an independent consultant (one with no stake and that does not show favoritism to any one entity to bring the following to the table:<br />
***Libraries, K12, Higher Ed, Local Government, State Agencies, Governor, Legislature, local municipalities, counties<br />
<br />
==Senator Brownlee==<br />
<br />
Senator Brownlee was instrumental in the formation of the Kan-Ed network and, as of recently, is not pleased with the results of the project<br />
<br />
*Perception of Kan-ed<br />
**Expressed disappointment that Kan-Ed has not done more<br />
**Wanted to have 75% of libraries, schools and hospitals connected by 2004<br />
***But Kan-Ed interpreted it as connecting 75% of those requesting and didn’t make the goal<br />
**THer are libraries appealing to get on, but not connected<br />
**Does not understand why more libraries aren’t connected<br />
**Paid for out of the Kansas Universal Service Fund (KUSF)<br />
***Senator Brownlee was trying to figure out how to use the fund and had this idea<br />
**Funded @ $10 million per year<br />
**Her vision was to have an entitity with buying power to help w/ negotiations<br />
**Her perception was that Kan-Ed should not have negotiated individual contracts<br />
***Rather, they should have waited to sign contracts until all were signed<br />
***Wanted all to be on a common platform (is not a techie so not sure what that means)<br />
**Kan-Ed purchases databases<br />
***But databases are available on commercial internet, so no incentive to join Kan Ed to access these databases<br />
***MB Note: Seemed to want to force libs to join Kan-Ed backbone in order to get databases<br />
*One perception she has was that the smaller telcos invest before the larger ones<br />
*Is considering merger of networks<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Rural Telemedicine<br />
**Economic Development<br />
**Increase collaboration and bring people to the table</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kansas_State_Visit_Data&diff=2529Kansas State Visit Data2007-03-29T02:41:08Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Laura McClure, former State Legislator==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
627 incorporated communities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
75% of people live in small communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former legislator from 92 to 02. Served rural counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
On KanEd committee, also on Utilities Committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Special telecom committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom act 96 and KanEd was to give access to people in small towns access to the Internet. Make dial-up available through rural Kansas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools a big part. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries big for adults who don’t have computers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was to help do this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also to allow distance ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Statewide “ubiquitous” seamless, affordable service.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to get up to 56K.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kansas Corporation Commission that regulates all utilities called that “rural welfare”. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Was funding to help get 56K throughout the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Real tension between urban and rural. Urban didn’t care if rural got any service. Anything that gave rural subsidies.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed but didn’t happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many of the schools and libraries couldn’t afford what a teleco was “touting” as their package&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fiber to the doorstep in some areas now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BlueSkies satellite.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
“Can’t expect dial=up to every farmhouse in the country”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look for a document on the telecom act of 96 and it would have the statute. Look for Rainey Gilian could find it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynn Holt was the research person who worked on it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What steps are you taking (have you taken) to make this vision a reality?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was created.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to bring in all the players.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Good documentation on this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summer interim document&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libaries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospials&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cities and counties??&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed. Took several years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Argued over where funding would come from.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Two other legislators&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Carl Holmes, House Rep&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sen. Jay Emler, owns a telecom operation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General idea of KanED was because did not see a lot of progress from the telecom act.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd came out of this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Wanted interconnectedness and opportunity at a reasonable price across the whole state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talked to some who were not real pleased with how it turned out.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Original purpose of KAnEd was local providers would work with KAnEd to provide at a reasonable cost, partially through KUSF funding. Just give grants, not broker prices.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Does KUSF $$ go to library or to teleco?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Didn’t even think of asking KanED to negotiate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not sure how all the details were actually implemented.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not familiar with I2.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talk to Ft. Hayes about distance education. Have students in China and Istanbul. Use a lot of technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cindy Eliot is in charge of China program.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What is taking (has taken) the lead in bringing this about?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Laura was the ranking democrat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of “drivenness” came out of this committee.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Combination of legislative initiative and someone bringing it to them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Can’t remember.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
After telecom 96 that didn’t work, wanted to find something that would.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. How successful have you been so far?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look at website to see who has signed on.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Only a few public libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nex tec rural telco provides BB.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In her town, Osborn, public library only has 3or 4 computers and they are old.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians are overwhelmed with everything they are doing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Previous librarian was not a computer person. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
In many of smaller communities that have older librarians, the training piece is huge. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
If nobody know how to run them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Why so few libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians overwhelmed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Should KAnEd reach out to these libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Assumed they would since they had the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could have provided training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looks like from the list they have reached out to the schools.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What barriers are you encountering in your efforts to establish a successful broadband network?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers local libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lack of trained librarians, many are unpaid volunteers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General public, if don’t know what KAnEd or high speed network is and does, then they don’t push for it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Where the libraries are connected, there was a champion at the library who went after KanEd connection.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Her library is a hotspot so people bring their own.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Frustration a barrier. Librarians got excited and then it didn’t happen. Hit a brick wall and gave up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What role do you see for public libraries in your state’s broadband vision?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
If they are connected and part of KanEd,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They library has to let the community know what it has to offer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trying to bring economic development back to the community. Need a broadband connection to do that.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Library has to let community know they have high speed. Library is in the middle of everything if connected.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Techie generation is in the schools. If connectivity not in schools than have to have it in the libraries to give equal opportunity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. Is the state librarian involved in your work to implement high speed broadband access? (Ask if it seems appropriate)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane was involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane testified.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the drive came from the legislators.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. What might the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do to help local public libraries get high speed connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Endowment fund to put some money in and encourage other foundations to invest. Use income from endowment fund to pay telecom costs. Would help KanEd in the future.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ksbluehills@ruraltel.net<br />
<br />
==Interview With Kansas State Library Staff==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Rhonda Machlin – resource sharing specialist&lt;br/&gt;Patti Butcher - Statewide Resource Sharing&lt;br/&gt;Roy Bird - LSTA coordinator&lt;br/&gt;Eric Gustafson – techn&lt;br/&gt;Marc Galbraith = Deputy state library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T-1 for every library including branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Still have many libraries on dial-up&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ability to use more virtual content instead of having physical content in the library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Be able to take advantage of digital resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many projects directly impacted by less bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Moving toward a hybrid catalog. Database of records plus actual live catalogs. Real time connections with local catalogs. As they make changes in catalog, happens automatically.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Overdrive audio books and more. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Customers can’t get these at local libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Business titles&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Language studies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Heaviest use is fiction but also non-fiction.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Homework Kansas, kids can’t get homework help.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Videos – sign language instruction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video-conferencing – not enough bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Self-initiated ILL. Can be done without high speed but takes quite the work to verify patrons.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Access to databases. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most just want to get to Heritage Quest&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. Barriers to high speed connectivity in Kansas&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telco’s&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lobby against KanEd providing last mile&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Turf wars between cable and telcos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
More cooperation between public library and school district or public library and community college&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Like to see aggregation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Different government structureare a barrier&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some have made an effort to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians and library boards who don’t see the need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Don’t understand what’s out there – education issue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some libraries get free internet from cable. Just take what they can get, not what they need.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Operate same way they budget. – see what they get and then use rather than this is what we need and then get it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NO vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Number of small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. How can these barriers be overcome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A statewide training initiative&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But many training initiatives are based on BB access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
”They” Need a statewide vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But bigger than libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In library community, library leadership&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KSL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KLA&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
School libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need an individual standard bearer. This is where I would like to see the state go. Should be Christie.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Just study and study issues and by the time make a decision, the moment has past.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Part of problem is inertia.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When KanEd first passed, thought it would be answer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Why did KanEd fail?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision of the person who headed it up, was different than what proposed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Partnership was with schools, higher ed, and hospitals. Each needs something a little bit different.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They are not getting high speed either.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have 800 members but less than 300 are connected. Most are academic and school districts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some of these have high speed networking through KanREn.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. Who at the table in planning for high speed broadband&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In local communities, groups that could work together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HighED&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospitals ?? but they are problematic&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trustees – have to be involved to share vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need some carrots and sticks&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have had standards for libraries but more suggestions than standards.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional cooperatives would cooperate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Problem is there is nothing to get behind. No vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Means switching priorities among systems. They have the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision is important because they don’t see what’s coming next.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What might the Gates Foundation do to help?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help develop the vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help libraries with erate – lot of libraries that don’t apply because of paperwork.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of small libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
==Kansas DISC==<br />
<br />
Denies Moore, the Chief Information Technology Officer (Executive Branch) who heads the Division of Information Systems and Communications met with us during our visit.<br />
<br />
*Kan-Win Network Description<br />
**Kansas Wide Information Network (Kan-Win) is a network for state agencies<br />
**Department of information Systems oversee the network<br />
***Through the Bureau of Telecommunications<br />
**Network that supports 625 sites<br />
**Backbone runs between Topeka, Kansas City and Wichetaw<br />
***Centered in Topeka—where it connects the entities to the Internet<br />
**Has negotiated a postalized rate for T1s, with most running back to Topeka<br />
**Topeka is connected via fiber-optic Metro Area Network (using Ethernet)<br />
**Recently moved from a 40 Mbps backbone to OC3<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service—each agency pays DISC for the services it receives over Kan-Win<br />
**That way, the agencies that receive federal funding can use the money to pay for connection<br />
**This also forces Kan-Win to be run efficiently, otherwise agencies would go elsewhere for cheaper service<br />
*Governance<br />
**Governance lies at the secretary of administration<br />
**But in actuality is given to DISC <br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Aggregate demand<br />
***Allows for maximization of funding and efficiency<br />
***Centralized service also cuts down on overhead (each agency doesn’t have to have WAN expert)<br />
**Centralized agency to negotiate w/ telcos (they are experts at it and individual agencies don’t have to have this expertise on staff)<br />
**Manage all the local loops<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Diversity of customers makes it difficult to keep them satisfied<br />
**Building the infrastructure to keep up with the demand<br />
***Keeping in touch with customers to etermine what they are doing that will require increasing the bandwidth<br />
*Adequate Bandwidth<br />
**In Topeka, not too much to worry about because of fiber network<br />
**For others they monitor the throughput<br />
**Determines what is available<br />
**Bumps up as necessary<br />
**But also aggregates as possible<br />
***E.g. instead of getting fractional T1s in an office buildings w/ multiple agencies, they will get a full T1 and charge for utilization<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increase funding to public libraries to help pay for connections<br />
**Increase their ability to work w/ local providers<br />
**State-wide plan to help libraries get connected &amp; understand what is available to them<br />
**Need help defining and developing a plan of action<br />
***Understand where they fit in their communities<br />
**Support for E-Rate<br />
**Help libraries make use of the services available to them</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kansas_State_Visit_Data&diff=2528Kansas State Visit Data2007-03-29T02:40:21Z<p>Mbard: /* Laura McClure, former State Legislator */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Laura McClure, former State Legislator==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
627 incorporated communities.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
75% of people live in small communities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Former legislator from 92 to 02. Served rural counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
On KanEd committee, also on Utilities Committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Special telecom committee&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telecom act 96 and KanEd was to give access to people in small towns access to the Internet. Make dial-up available through rural Kansas.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools a big part. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries big for adults who don’t have computers.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was to help do this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Also to allow distance ed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Statewide “ubiquitous” seamless, affordable service.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to get up to 56K.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Kansas Corporation Commission that regulates all utilities called that “rural welfare”. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Was funding to help get 56K throughout the state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Real tension between urban and rural. Urban didn’t care if rural got any service. Anything that gave rural subsidies.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed but didn’t happen.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many of the schools and libraries couldn’t afford what a teleco was “touting” as their package&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Fiber to the doorstep in some areas now.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
BlueSkies satellite.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
“Can’t expect dial=up to every farmhouse in the country”&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look for a document on the telecom act of 96 and it would have the statute. Look for Rainey Gilian could find it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lynn Holt was the research person who worked on it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. What steps are you taking (have you taken) to make this vision a reality?&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd was created.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Tried to bring in all the players.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Good documentation on this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Summer interim document&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libaries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Schools&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospials&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Universities&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cities and counties??&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Got it passed. Took several years.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Argued over where funding would come from.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Two other legislators&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Carl Holmes, House Rep&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Sen. Jay Emler, owns a telecom operation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General idea of KanED was because did not see a lot of progress from the telecom act.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KanEd came out of this.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Wanted interconnectedness and opportunity at a reasonable price across the whole state.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talked to some who were not real pleased with how it turned out.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Original purpose of KAnEd was local providers would work with KAnEd to provide at a reasonable cost, partially through KUSF funding. Just give grants, not broker prices.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Does KUSF $$ go to library or to teleco?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Didn’t even think of asking KanED to negotiate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not sure how all the details were actually implemented.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Not familiar with I2.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Talk to Ft. Hayes about distance education. Have students in China and Istanbul. Use a lot of technology.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Cindy Eliot is in charge of China program.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. What is taking (has taken) the lead in bringing this about?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Laura was the ranking democrat.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of “drivenness” came out of this committee.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Combination of legislative initiative and someone bringing it to them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Can’t remember.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
After telecom 96 that didn’t work, wanted to find something that would.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. How successful have you been so far?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Look at website to see who has signed on.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Only a few public libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Nex tec rural telco provides BB.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In her town, Osborn, public library only has 3or 4 computers and they are old.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians are overwhelmed with everything they are doing.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Previous librarian was not a computer person. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
In many of smaller communities that have older librarians, the training piece is huge. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
If nobody know how to run them.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Why so few libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians overwhelmed&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Should KAnEd reach out to these libraries?&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Assumed they would since they had the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Could have provided training.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Looks like from the list they have reached out to the schools.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. What barriers are you encountering in your efforts to establish a successful broadband network?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
$$&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Age of computers local libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lack of trained librarians, many are unpaid volunteers&lt;br/&gt;<br />
General public, if don’t know what KAnEd or high speed network is and does, then they don’t push for it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Where the libraries are connected, there was a champion at the library who went after KanEd connection.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Her library is a hotspot so people bring their own.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Frustration a barrier. Librarians got excited and then it didn’t happen. Hit a brick wall and gave up.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What role do you see for public libraries in your state’s broadband vision?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
If they are connected and part of KanEd,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They library has to let the community know what it has to offer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trying to bring economic development back to the community. Need a broadband connection to do that.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Library has to let community know they have high speed. Library is in the middle of everything if connected.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Techie generation is in the schools. If connectivity not in schools than have to have it in the libraries to give equal opportunity.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;7. Is the state librarian involved in your work to implement high speed broadband access? (Ask if it seems appropriate)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane was involved.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Duane testified.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most of the drive came from the legislators.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;8. What might the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do to help local public libraries get high speed connectivity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Endowment fund to put some money in and encourage other foundations to invest. Use income from endowment fund to pay telecom costs. Would help KanEd in the future.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ksbluehills@ruraltel.net<br />
<br />
<br />
==Kansas DISC==<br />
<br />
Denies Moore, the Chief Information Technology Officer (Executive Branch) who heads the Division of Information Systems and Communications met with us during our visit.<br />
<br />
*Kan-Win Network Description<br />
**Kansas Wide Information Network (Kan-Win) is a network for state agencies<br />
**Department of information Systems oversee the network<br />
***Through the Bureau of Telecommunications<br />
**Network that supports 625 sites<br />
**Backbone runs between Topeka, Kansas City and Wichetaw<br />
***Centered in Topeka—where it connects the entities to the Internet<br />
**Has negotiated a postalized rate for T1s, with most running back to Topeka<br />
**Topeka is connected via fiber-optic Metro Area Network (using Ethernet)<br />
**Recently moved from a 40 Mbps backbone to OC3<br />
*Funding<br />
**Fee for service—each agency pays DISC for the services it receives over Kan-Win<br />
**That way, the agencies that receive federal funding can use the money to pay for connection<br />
**This also forces Kan-Win to be run efficiently, otherwise agencies would go elsewhere for cheaper service<br />
*Governance<br />
**Governance lies at the secretary of administration<br />
**But in actuality is given to DISC <br />
*Best Practices<br />
**Aggregate demand<br />
***Allows for maximization of funding and efficiency<br />
***Centralized service also cuts down on overhead (each agency doesn’t have to have WAN expert)<br />
**Centralized agency to negotiate w/ telcos (they are experts at it and individual agencies don’t have to have this expertise on staff)<br />
**Manage all the local loops<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Diversity of customers makes it difficult to keep them satisfied<br />
**Building the infrastructure to keep up with the demand<br />
***Keeping in touch with customers to etermine what they are doing that will require increasing the bandwidth<br />
*Adequate Bandwidth<br />
**In Topeka, not too much to worry about because of fiber network<br />
**For others they monitor the throughput<br />
**Determines what is available<br />
**Bumps up as necessary<br />
**But also aggregates as possible<br />
***E.g. instead of getting fractional T1s in an office buildings w/ multiple agencies, they will get a full T1 and charge for utilization<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Increase funding to public libraries to help pay for connections<br />
**Increase their ability to work w/ local providers<br />
**State-wide plan to help libraries get connected &amp; understand what is available to them<br />
**Need help defining and developing a plan of action<br />
***Understand where they fit in their communities<br />
**Support for E-Rate<br />
**Help libraries make use of the services available to them<br />
<br />
==Interview With Kansas State Library Staff==<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Rhonda Machlin – resource sharing specialist&lt;br/&gt;Patti Butcher - Statewide Resource Sharing&lt;br/&gt;Roy Bird - LSTA coordinator&lt;br/&gt;Eric Gustafson – techn&lt;br/&gt;Marc Galbraith = Deputy state library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;1. What is your state’s vision for highspeed broadband connectivity in the state? How are you defining high speed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
T-1 for every library including branches&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Still have many libraries on dial-up&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Ability to use more virtual content instead of having physical content in the library&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Be able to take advantage of digital resources.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Many projects directly impacted by less bandwidth&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Moving toward a hybrid catalog. Database of records plus actual live catalogs. Real time connections with local catalogs. As they make changes in catalog, happens automatically.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Overdrive audio books and more. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Customers can’t get these at local libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Business titles&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Language studies&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Heaviest use is fiction but also non-fiction.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Homework Kansas, kids can’t get homework help.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Videos – sign language instruction&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Video-conferencing – not enough bandwidth.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Self-initiated ILL. Can be done without high speed but takes quite the work to verify patrons.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Access to databases. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
Most just want to get to Heritage Quest&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;2. Barriers to high speed connectivity in Kansas&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Telco’s&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Lobby against KanEd providing last mile&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Turf wars between cable and telcos&lt;br/&gt;<br />
More cooperation between public library and school district or public library and community college&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Like to see aggregation&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Different government structureare a barrier&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some have made an effort to.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Librarians and library boards who don’t see the need&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Don’t understand what’s out there – education issue&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some libraries get free internet from cable. Just take what they can get, not what they need.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Operate same way they budget. – see what they get and then use rather than this is what we need and then get it.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
NO vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Number of small rural libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;3. How can these barriers be overcome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A statewide training initiative&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But many training initiatives are based on BB access&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
”They” Need a statewide vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
But bigger than libraries.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In library community, library leadership&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KSL&lt;br/&gt;<br />
KLA&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional systems&lt;br/&gt;<br />
School libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need an individual standard bearer. This is where I would like to see the state go. Should be Christie.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Just study and study issues and by the time make a decision, the moment has past.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Part of problem is inertia.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
When KanEd first passed, thought it would be answer.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;4. Why did KanEd fail?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision of the person who headed it up, was different than what proposed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Partnership was with schools, higher ed, and hospitals. Each needs something a little bit different.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
They are not getting high speed either.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have 800 members but less than 300 are connected. Most are academic and school districts.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Some of these have high speed networking through KanREn.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;5. Who at the table in planning for high speed broadband&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
In local communities, groups that could work together&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Libraries&lt;br/&gt;<br />
HighED&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Hospitals ?? but they are problematic&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Trustees – have to be involved to share vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Need some carrots and sticks&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Have had standards for libraries but more suggestions than standards.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Regional cooperatives would cooperate.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Problem is there is nothing to get behind. No vision.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Means switching priorities among systems. They have the money.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Vision is important because they don’t see what’s coming next.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;strong&gt;6. What might the Gates Foundation do to help?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help develop the vision&lt;br/&gt;<br />
Help libraries with erate – lot of libraries that don’t apply because of paperwork.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
A lot of small libraries.&lt;br/&gt;</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio_State_Visit_Data&diff=2506Ohio State Visit Data2007-03-28T22:06:55Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
==John==<br />
==Mark==<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Greg Byerly===<br />
I talkd about your broadband deployment in Ohio question with Roger Verny, Deputy Ohio State Librarian, and we discusse how just as OPLIN was based on equity of access, broadband availability also needs to be based on equity of access. The underserved areas need access to resources that developed areas do. The way you get to resources today is through broadband access. The Gates Foundation needs to lend not only its money but its political cache in reducing the digital divide. They need to be the Champion.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=New_Mexico&diff=2491New Mexico2007-03-28T00:48:58Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>&lt;!--googleoff: index--&gt;<br />
==Data==<br />
<br />
===Public Libraries and the Internet===<br />
Statewide<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!LT56kbps!!56-128kbps!!129-256kbps!!257-768kbps!!769-1.5kbps!!GT1.5mbps!!DK!!!!LT 769!!GT769<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||2.30%||10.30%||11.10%||20.30%||17.70%||31.50%||6.90%||||44.00%||49.20%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
By Metropolitan Status<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Rural!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Surburban!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Urban||<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||43.80%||44.30%||11.40%||||New Mexico||65.50%||34.50%||0%||||New Mexico||18.20%||81.80%||0%||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===E-Rate===<br />
<br />
We are waiting for data on E-Rate discounts in this state.<br />
<br />
===Internet2 SPEGs===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
New Mexico has an Internet2 SPEG, and 1 library is connected.<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Connected 2k6!!Possible!!% of possible!!K20 &lt; 1.5 Mbps!!K20 =&gt; 1.5Mbps<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||1||113||0.88%||0.00%||0.88%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===ORS Survey Data===<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;2&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!colspan=&quot;8&quot;|How Libraries Connect...!!colspan=&quot;7&quot;|Barriers !!<br />
|-<br />
!State!!% of Libraries w/ Broadband!!Teleco Company!!School District!!Local Gov't!!Regional Telecom Network!!Regional Library Network!!State Telecomm Network!!State Library Telecom Network!!Other!!Few!!Comm Capacity!!Too Many Companies!!High Cost!!State Policy!!Lack of Local Expertise!!Other!!# of Vulnerable Libraries<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||76-90%||X||X||X||||||||||||||X||||X||||X||||15<br />
|}<br />
===Misc.===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Library Conn'y (Draft - circ'd by Rick W. (J. Bertot)!!Receives Fed'l High-Cost Funding!!State Adv. Services, BBd or Tech Fund||State USF High-Cost!!State USF Schools &amp; Lib!!State USF Low-Income(in add'n to fed'l)!!Provides state support for Fed'l Lifeline/Linkup||Statewide Network (SEGP)!!Statewide Video Franchise!!Notes<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||40-59% of libraries with connectivity speeds of 769kbps or higher||States receiving greater than $5 per line in high cost support||* * ||$ $ $ $ ||||||||||X||X||||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===FCC Data===<br />
<br />
Providers of High Speed Lines by Technology<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!ADSL!!SDSL!!Traditional&lt;br/&gt;Wireline!!Cable&lt;br/&gt;Modem!!Fiber!!Satellite!!Fixed&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Mobile&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Power Line&lt;br/&gt;and Other!!Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||129,076||544||1,428||100,157||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||2,160||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||0||250,439||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!1999&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2000&lt;br/&gt;June!!2001&lt;br/&gt;June!!2002&lt;br/&gt;June!!2003&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2005&lt;br/&gt;June!!2005&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2006&lt;br/&gt;June!!<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||2,671||20,099||44,462||71,355||115,147||145,125||174,534||204,054||250,439||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Universal Service Fund<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|State or Jurisdiction!!colspan=&quot;6&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Payments from USF to Service Providers!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot; colspan =&quot;2&quot;|Estimated&lt;br/&gt;Contributions!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Estimated Net&lt;br/&gt; Dollar Flow<br />
|-<br />
!High Cost&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Low-Income&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Schools &amp;&lt;br/&gt;Libraries!!Rural Health&lt;br/&gt;Care!!colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;br/&gt;Total<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!Amount!!% of Total!!Amount!!% of Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|New Mexico||58,511||10,655||17,819||293||87,278||1.34%||44,433||0.68%||42,845||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Broadband Providers==<br />
<br />
<br />
==State Network Information==<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Network Org.!!Funding Source!!Constituents!!Control Body!!Technology!!<br />
|-<br />
|NEW MEXICO||No information available at this time||||||||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==State-Level Broadband Report==<br />
<br />
==Information Sources==<br />
*Gillespie Visit<br />
*Bertot Visit<br />
*Nancy Bolt Visit<br />
<br />
==State Specific Questions/Data Points==<br />
<br />
==[[Bob Gillespie's New Mexico Report]]==<br />
<br />
==John Bertot's Visit==<br />
<br />
I visited two libraries in NM today — the resort town of Angel Fire (this is actually a 501 non-profit library established by those in the community some 20 years ago; get a bit of state aid, but all else paid for by the Friends through fundraising); and a small town called Abiquiu (go ahead, see if you can find it on the map). Two ends of a spectrum in terms of serving small communities.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Angel Fire’s connectivity was interesting. They have a 2-hop line of site configuration (one hop down the hill; another hop further down) and then a connection to a T1. At the end of the day, they get maybe 200-300kbps which is shared by 5 public access computers and 2 staff computers and a wireless router. Particularly during the summer and winter seasons, things get really bogged down. Also, strong winds and storms affect the connection – so reliability is an issue.<br />
<br />
They are “promised” DSL later this year, but have heard that one before.<br />
<br />
A second point of interest is that the director, who does not have an MLS, comes from the San Francisco area and is a techie. Left there to find a quieter place; plus liked golfing and skiing. His plans, provided they can get the funding are really quite interesting -- wants to go Linux and set up virtual machines, etc. Some pretty interesting ideas on how to move the technology forward; but bandwidth will continue to be a bottleneck.<br />
<br />
Abiquiu was, shall we say, challenged. They had 7 public access computers — all old; they supposedly have a tech guy that the library pays something (he started as a volunteer). But, of the 7, 4 had error messages on them; there were pop-ups on another; I could go down the list. The person there didn’t have a clue what type of connection or speed. From what I could see there on the floor it appeared to be DSL. I was the only one there at the time (before school got out) and tried doing some surfing. Should have been reasonably fast, but I suspect that the age of the machines and lack of maintenance kept things pretty slow. Also, the machines either needed new video cards or new monitors. Not a particularly good experience. But, the point here is that they had a faster connection (best I could tell), but it yielded a slower and less satisfactory user experience. <br />
<br />
Just a brief report.....oh, and it was a beautiful ride up through Taos and on to Angel Fire.<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;!--googleon: index--&gt;</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kentucky_State_Visit_Data&diff=2476Kentucky State Visit Data2007-03-26T17:12:34Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Dept. of Ed. Office of Educational Technology==<br />
<br />
Tim Sizemore works at the office for Ed. Technology, part of the KY Dept. of Education<br />
<br />
*What is KEN?<br />
**KEN is the statewide network that currently connects K12 schools<br />
**Contract with AT&amp;T to get last mile out to school districts<br />
***AT&amp;T is covering all of the build out costs of digging trenches and putting in fiber (not covering costs if they need to tear up a parking lot or similar construction)<br />
***School districts will then have fiber in within their districts to connect the individual chools<br />
**AT&amp;T will manage the backbone and the last mile to the district &amp; provide an edge router @ the school district<br />
**Nortel (under contract from Department of Ed (DoE) will manage the network behind the edge router<br />
**Since the network is being built with an existing contract, it is covered by E-Rate w/ no competitive bid<br />
**Funded by the state <br />
***Kentucky DoE Office of Education Technology has experienced an large budget increase to cover management, circuits, and installation of instructional devices<br />
**Cost Structure for state networks<br />
***KEN-AT&amp;T primarily contractor (per month)<br />
****10 Mbps $3544 Telco + $320 Commonwealth office of Technology (COT)<br />
****100 Mbps $8800 Telco + $320 COT<br />
****250 Mbps $1450 Telco + $320 COT<br />
***KPEN-Windstream (per month)<br />
****10 Mbps $4000<br />
****100 Mbps $5500<br />
*Brief History<br />
**Originally started as hub and spoke w/ connection going back to Frankfort<br />
**Lots of things are centralized @ state DoE, including records, email, etc.<br />
**Is now installing 10 or 100 or 250 Mbps connection<br />
*Success Factors<br />
**Governor’s prescription for innovation<br />
***Therefore people and legislators understand technology more than they used to <br />
**Connect Kentucky lobbied legislature for KEN<br />
*Barriers &amp; Sustainability<br />
**Wasn’t sure if they would get the appropriation to pay for the network<br />
**Now, the challenge is to maintain the appropriation and to figure out the next steps in KEN, including connecting libraries in the next round of appropriations<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Interventions<br />
**Formulate plans<br />
***Decide what the stakeholders will pay for<br />
***Decide what Gates will pay for <br />
***Have a split<br />
**Program to raise awareness<br />
**Help plan w/ stakeholders<br />
*Misc.<br />
**Connect Kentucky<br />
***Tim was on an E-Community Leadership team and thought that CK was doing a great job and that the E-Community Leadership teams were great!<br />
***The teams helped to build demand and awareness<br />
**As possible evolution of KEN, Connect Kentucky may take over management of the network<br />
**Ideas for Internet2 in Libs (Tim <br />
***Video Conferencing<br />
***Education Gaming<br />
***Digital libraries<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mark Rutledge==<br />
<br />
Mark is the commissioner of the Commonwealth Office of Technology.<br />
<br />
*Kentucky they have a procurement code<br />
**Except for utilties<br />
**Whatever territory they are in, they use the LEC<br />
**What they did was develop a statewide mechanism<br />
***This will allow standard pricing structure throughtout the state<br />
***Developed partnerships through contracting that is managed by BellSouth now AT&amp;T---who then sub-contracted w/ local<br />
***Gave them a postalized rate for all connection<br />
**Commonwealth Office of Technology (COT) then adds a group of services to the telco <br />
***Internal wiring and management, router management &amp; install, e-mail<br />
*Thinks that the de-regulation by legislature helps spur broadband deployment across the state<br />
**De-reg coupled w/ KIH helped telcos re-coup their investment<br />
**Coupled w/ centralized purchasing authority (COT), you gain enormous efficencies<br />
**Also commits to a period of time to allow for the build-out to occur<br />
*KEN<br />
**KEN is a logical network that has no physical infrastructure—logical configurations to create a virtual circuit<br />
**Libraries can join KEN<br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Develop a mechanism to develop a mechanism whereby libraries can aggregate demand<br />
**Show them a business case via the aggregated demand, coupled with multi-year contract to pay off any build out that would be required<br />
**This is how they were able to get good rates for their network<br />
**If telcos have to compete for each bid, they won’t cut the margins as much<br />
**Willing to help w/ telco negotiations<br />
*Final Thoughts from Mark<br />
**Basically, they think the postalized rates coupled with long term contract incent AT&amp;T to build connectivity<br />
<br />
==Barry Bishop==<br />
<br />
Barry is the VP of Wireline Services at Windstream, the number two telco provider in Kentucky<br />
<br />
*Footprint of Windstream<br />
**Wireline around Lexington, London, Ashley, Campbell, some out west.<br />
**In 16 other states<br />
***Merger of Alltel &amp; Valor wire lines<br />
**Serves a variety of population density &amp; demographics<br />
*Broadband<br />
**General offering of DSL<br />
***DSLAM &amp; SADSLAM (does not reside in main switch office) 80% of footprint is covered<br />
***In new builds, they are doing fiber to the premise<br />
***Does not market video at this time<br />
***Will be up to mid to late 80s<br />
**Connect Kentucky is helping to determine where to deploy<br />
**Statewide network<br />
***Provider to KAPEN (higher education network) 100 Mb—is prime contractor<br />
****Run backbone and run last mile where they are the ILEC—partner with others in their territory<br />
**Does not connect libraries<br />
***Can provide DSL or dedicated circuit to connect broadband<br />
**Everyone can have broadband (they will run T1)<br />
***It is a question of affordable broadband<br />
*Connect Kentucky<br />
**Partner &amp; investor in CK from the get go<br />
**They are great advocates for broadband deployment<br />
**Not out there beating them up over broadband<br />
**Gets leads from CK on who doesn’t have broadband<br />
**Got everyone more focused<br />
**Would not have spread it as evenly as they would have if CK hadn’t acted as a catalyst<br />
**Would prioritized broadband deployment based upon demand (and CK help id the demand or would come straight from customers)<br />
*CLECs<br />
**Several CLEC competitors<br />
**3 facilities-based Telcos (Municipal, County &amp; Windstream) in one city<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Last 10-15 percent<br />
**Computer ownership..everyone that wants has<br />
**1600 new sites w/ broadband in 2k6 (in all 15 states)<br />
*Bills<br />
**Beneficiaries of some of the bills, but were rolling out broadband anyway.<br />
*What factors roll out broadband<br />
**Demand and competition<br />
**Willing to let others set up ISP while they decided what to do with broadband<br />
*Take rate<br />
**Depends on the site<br />
***Can put in sites for 8-10k all the way up to $250,000;<br />
***25% penetration across the state<br />
****Good marketing helped draw the people in (Connect Kentucky played a crucial part in that)<br />
***10% before investment<br />
*Gates Recommendations<br />
**Regional library approach (would like to have something like that<br />
***Great RFP proposal<br />
***Then share a backbone internet connection<br />
<br />
==AT&amp;T==<br />
<br />
Joan Coleman President of AT&amp;T and Amy Scarborough Director of Legislative and External Affairs<br />
<br />
*They think they are building out ok and have a significant amount of deployment to public libraries<br />
*Will have 100% broadband availability by the end of the year<br />
*Merger conditions and what it means in Kentucky<br />
**Commitment of 100% broadband deployment by the end of the year<br />
**Relationship with WildBlue to deploy to areas un-served areas of the state<br />
*Issues affecting the broadband deployment in the state<br />
**Looks to Connect Kentucky to help (especially w/ de-regulation)<br />
**Barriers of entry because of geography<br />
**Wants to be the only provider for their customers<br />
**Since 2004 to beginning in ’06 all deployment was to communities of less than 900<br />
*Success factors<br />
**Investment in backbone to increase deployment<br />
**Difficult to get infrastructure to get on the backbone E.g. placement of DSLAMs<br />
**Put in remote terminals in rural areas<br />
**Re-using equipment—when replaced, old equipment goes to where it hasn’t been deployed before<br />
*Take Rate<br />
**Some areas with a lot of wealth that they didn’t think exist before—when AT&amp;T deployed, they used DSL for creative activities<br />
***E.g. Editing books online, communities with professors, home businesses<br />
**35.95 for a 1.5 Mb connection<br />
**Thinks that libraries can get more if they pay for more<br />
*Leg and/or Policy changes<br />
**IPTV is a driver of deployment in every state<br />
**Video Franchising--<br />
*House Bill 550<br />
**Set up the opportunity for providers to get grants, but appropriation was not made<br />
**May get appropriation in the future<br />
**Money from appropriation may go to help a failing dam<br />
**AT&amp;T likes the grant because they are able to apply<br />
***Not intended for overbuild; is for un-served areas<br />
*Broadband Task Force<br />
**Has disbanded<br />
**Looked @ deployment at the time<br />
**Sees Connect Kentucky as the task force (views task force as a child of legislative process)<br />
**Did good job of discussing issues @ margin and bringing together legislators<br />
**Was put in place as an accountability measure<br />
*Relationship w/ Wild Blue<br />
**Does not know any details<br />
**Partnering w/ them for deployment opportunities<br />
**In areas where AT&amp;T is not deploying, WildBlue is the provider<br />
**Connect Kentucky is working to bring down the cost via partnership<br />
*KEN<br />
**Coordinating partner w/ KIH2<br />
**Schools were a part of KIH2<br />
**There was a lot of work done to get connections out to each school district as part of KIH2<br />
**Worked to get the infrastructure out there<br />
**17 Partners coming together because of KIH(1)<br />
***Which partner gets which school is dependent on ILEC<br />
*What recommendations do you have for us?<br />
**Removing regulatory barriers to allowing providers to come in and offer service<br />
***Did not want to have to re-sell broadband to CLEC---shares POTS but didn’t want to sell DSLAM access<br />
**Infrastructure is in place and seeing if there is an issue—the question is that is the broadband connectivity enough and is it affordable?<br />
**A lot of work has been done and continues to be done to spur deployment<br />
**Another avenue is in Science, Engineering and Math—Kentucky has entities has content and then to build broadband out using Science and math as a driver, which will in turn allow the libraries to be more attractive<br />
<br />
==Mark David Gross Chairmen Kentucky Public Service Commission==<br />
<br />
*Legislation<br />
**2 or 3 years ago a bill was passed to de-regulate broadband provisions from the commission’s jurisdiction<br />
**Proceeding session there was a deal that de-regulated local telephone service<br />
**Bills to de-regulate telecommunications (much less than 3 ½ years ago)<br />
**Issue: PSC does not reg. cable so telephone argued that they are regulated but cable is not<br />
**Impact<br />
***De-reg of broadband has been helpful in getting broadband deployment in the state<br />
***Telcos said they couldn’t deploy because of PSC<br />
****To get de-reg, the ILECs would have to provision broadband in rural<br />
***Doesn’t think 92% of deployment w/out de-regulation<br />
***Bell South was able to sell investment to corporate b/c then they wouldn’t need to share facilities<br />
***Thinks they have done a good job, but there are pockets that are unserved<br />
***Wife (school board) says that usage by children is great!<br />
*How much oversight do you have?<br />
**Telcos<br />
***Virtually none<br />
***They ask for some reporting, which they give freely <br />
***Could not have reporting requirement<br />
***Complaints &amp; advertising oversight<br />
***Regulates the basic phone service with price (basic local service w/ no frills) approx 20-25%<br />
***De-reg has not increased complaints<br />
**Fully regulate the power companies for their power utilities<br />
***But not for broadband<br />
***Duke KY has expressed interest &amp; had pilot project of broadband over powerlines<br />
**In some rural areas, the public utilities offer cable<br />
*Power company bill<br />
**Bill to allow power companies to drive broadband<br />
**Main purpose: sell propane and other services (not broadband)<br />
*Problem in his mind is that getting broadband in the last 8% of the state where the population density is low, there is a fixed, low income preventing them from adopting<br />
*Has concerns and doubts that the last 8% will be completed<br />
*Thinks that the wireless from DCI is interesting but not sure if wireless will be a viable solution for eastern KY<br />
*How he characterized state of broadband:<br />
**Vastly improved since 2004<br />
**Gets better each month<br />
**Thinks it will be interesting to see how close to 100% they actually get<br />
**High-speed (anything but dial-up)…thinks most can get it<br />
**Been happy w/ CK and telephone providers<br />
**Pleasantly surprised—though they were being lied to about de-reg promises<br />
**Broadband task force appointed by legislator w/ cross-section of people to monitor what the telcos were doing to ensure compliance<br />
***Issued a report and not sure if it is still around<br />
**Knew that they must follow through in order to get land line de-reg<br />
*KEN<br />
**Not involved in KEN<br />
**Had not even heard of the project<br />
*Success factors of 92% <br />
**The entities that have had the abilities to deploy broadband has been freed up by decision maker (e.g. corporate) that the numbers work. Even though the cost is high, they can make it up in some of the more urban areas to subsidize this high cost<br />
**Skeptical of broadband de-reg, but is now a supporter<br />
**The hue and cry of folks in rural Kentucky who want what their cousins in urban areas has<br />
***Thinks the companies have been responsive to this cry—they want to make profit and if it makes sense, they will deploy<br />
**Governor has done a good job of getting the word out and hammering the issue<br />
***The public is aware of it b/c the governor has said it, president says it and federal people say it<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geography<br />
**Socio-economic status &amp; abilities<br />
***Does not want or can not afford the connection<br />
***These people are the ones libraries should be attracting<br />
*Bill and Melinda Gates Interventions<br />
**Wondering if there would be some way to piggy back off of access that is already in the community<br />
**College professor @ SE Community College…wanted high speed @ home and couldn’t get it…lived within several hundred yards of fiber<br />
**Wonders if there could be greater collaboration between public libraries and other public institutions<br />
<br />
==John Higginbotham==<br />
<br />
John is the superintendent of the Frankfort plant board that provides cable TV, telecom, water, power, Internet, and security services.<br />
<br />
*Services they provide<br />
**Electric and Water Plant Board of the city of Frankfort<br />
**Muninciple provided---Independent of the city gov’t <br />
**Provide Electric, Water, Cable (1952), Telecom (CLEC—ILEC is AT&amp;T/Bell South), Broadband (2001)<br />
***Cannot subsidize cable and telcom w/ Water and Electric<br />
***All three are separate businesses<br />
**Also go to Whitford county and Shelby county<br />
**Non-profit organization<br />
**10,000 residential and commercial telco lines, 9700 Internet Access, 17,000 cable<br />
***Uses POTS and Cable VOIP (approx 60% of the residential lines)<br />
***Interconnected city school district to central office then out to Commonwealth Office of Technology (gave them the fiber network)<br />
***Provided 2 Mb synchronous fiber link that FPB gives to them @ retail for staff<br />
***Provided a 8 Mb 1 Mb up cable modem<br />
***Partners with lib for community taping industry<br />
**Owns a network to connect state offices<br />
**40 municipal electric companies (12 or 13 that is in the cable/telcom)<br />
***They have been on the leading edge of broadband; leaving the private sector behind<br />
*Important Factors that are affecting broadband deployment<br />
**Cost of upgrading equipment was large (only 512K until the new equipment was in place<br />
***Now they need to go even faster<br />
**Realized that they needed to make broadband available to library after library board was planning to build their new building<br />
**2 Mb for $500 /month &amp; cable for $100 / month<br />
**Have a few hundred homes left to wire<br />
*Biggest Barrier to Broadband<br />
**Cost and ability to make revenue back on the expenditure<br />
***Low population density<br />
**Reaching some of the really rural areas (nearly $10,000/mile to wire)<br />
**Topography of the county is large<br />
**Adelphia (now bought by Time Warner) did not pay for upgrades to infrastructure<br />
*Recommendations for Gates foundation<br />
**Will email us later<br />
**Interface with the library<br />
<br />
==Kirk Poling==<br />
<br />
Kirk works for Insight Communications, the largest cable company in Kentucky, but has only been with the company for 6 months. Insight is a privately held company (no public scrutiny).<br />
<br />
*Has worked for many years on broadband deployment to various<br />
*Trying to figure out how to get into the business market<br />
*$1 Billion of revenue every year (7th largest)<br />
*Is looking for a way to build out the fiber to business and figure out how to build infrastructure<br />
*Trying to determine where there is a need (serves KY, IL, IN and OH)<br />
<br />
<br />
*Do you serve libraries?<br />
**They do have some libraries—do not have exact numbers<br />
**Active in K12 space and is working on Higher Ed <br />
*The factors that go into business decisions<br />
**Build it they will come (attitude of the early 2000s), but ineffective<br />
**Do not build it but hope they will come is the new attitude<br />
**His philosophy is that it is important to look into both sides of the equation<br />
**Want to quantify ROI on 12-36 months<br />
**Looks at each situation case by case<br />
**Fiber to the business; schools, universities, and libs (not to the home)<br />
**Trying to figure out how to spread out the up-front costs for deployment<br />
**No plans for FTTH deployment<br />
*B&amp;M Gates interventions<br />
**I don’t know<br />
**IF you have value-added resource and application would be great<br />
**Partner w/ public service organization<br />
**Lack of dollars and cents (although cost of bandwidth is dropping)<br />
**Look at each opportunity to determine feasibility<br />
*What do you think of CK?<br />
**Great initiative (let’s get w/ the companies to get deployment)<br />
**Tying to get Insight involved in CK activities<br />
**Thinks that Insight is a good way to deploy broadband ($1 billion of revenue to spend)<br />
**Great to help consumers and now branching out to business<br />
<br />
==David Hemingway==<br />
<br />
David is a Senior Account Executive at Digital Connections, Inc. (a infrastructure company)<br />
<br />
*What is DCI?<br />
**Carrier to ISP is not a function they normally have fulfilled<br />
**DCI started as a data networking company in 1992<br />
**@ the time that frame relay was taking hold<br />
**Survived the crash<br />
**Stumbled onto Connect Kentucky<br />
**Had done several wireless integrations<br />
*Putting together 7 conty wi-fi network<br />
**Hooking up the service is now done w/ a partner<br />
**Synergy is providing the Internet connectivity, hooking up, marketing and retailing of the service<br />
**DCI provides the access points and backhaul<br />
**900 MHz spectrum is used (non line of site and unlicensed)<br />
***looked @ 700 MHz, but is owned by someone who does not want to lease to DCI<br />
**Will lease the tower from Crown Castle (a tower management company)<br />
***Has a radio to go out to customers and then a separate radio to act as a back haul<br />
**2600 sq mi<br />
**Finish up deployment by the end of the year (2007)<br />
**Speeds <br />
***512k down (@29.95) to 2.5 Mb down <br />
***Maximum speed is somewhere 3.0 Mb<br />
*Do you have to provide services to some public entitites?<br />
**10% rebate has to go back to people helping to fund portions of the network<br />
**Offer a free hotspot to all counties as part of the contract (all bandwidth is free)<br />
*Taking customers away?<br />
**Only satellite people for the most part (in most cases)<br />
**There are places where there will be overlap w/ wire companies<br />
*Is this service going well?<br />
**Not deployed yet<br />
**Have completed beta test that exceeded expectations<br />
**Moving forward on more deployment<br />
**Other providers seem to be done well<br />
**46 WISPs in Indiana using Motorola equipment that they will be using<br />
**20-25 miles is max (going to go to 10 mi) $85,000 per tower<br />
**Profitable @ 5400 in seven counties (13-15% consumers in the county)<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Foundation<br />
**Maybe some uses for libraries<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Samantha Finke @ ConnectKY===<br />
<br />
As far as the success factor I would have to say that I think the biggest reason Kentucky has been successful has been the drive of our local communities and ConnectKentucky’s grass roots efforts. We are also lucky to have several legislators who are very passionate about seeing Kentucky succeed and who recognize the role that technology, particularly broadband access, plays into that success. Thus, I don’t think our success can be attributed to any one thing – instead I think the combination of public, private and local efforts has made many folks more aware of technology and the need to build infrastructure and implement applications to support growth. Kentucky is by no means perfect but we are definitely making great strides in the availability, awareness and adoption of technology!<br />
<br />
I keep hearing the statement Nancy made about how technology centers are just not necessary in the presence of libraries and think that was a GREAT point. I think one thing that we all need to advocate at the state and local level, particularly in Kentucky, is getting people to recognize that. I agree there is no point in wasting more resources to build something in addition to what already exists in libraries. Instead, the resources that have been allocated for technology centers and the like should be put into libraries to enable them to serve as the learning/technological center of the community – it just makes the most sense. This way both the libraries and their communities will benefit. Also, with the level of broadband connectivity that now exists in KY, I think it would be very easy to reinforce libraries as the centerpiece of the community again. In recent years I think that libraries have unfortunately been neglected by states. As a result, my speculation is that those that aren’t up-to-date with the technological age have probably been disregarded by some, whereas those that are up-to-date with technology have probably seen a resurgence in activity – now that is just pure speculation on my part. In any case, technology is definitely going to play a major role in the future of libraries. I think they definitely should be the hub of the community and I see interactive learning classes, programs, and such to be huge opportunities for libraries. I feel very strongly that Kentucky could use funds from the Gate’s Foundation to boost libraries with technological and innovative learning programs, which in turn would draw more of the community in and bring libraries back to the stage they belong – a centerpiece for the community.<br />
<br />
===Deborah Clayton===<br />
<br />
The lack of it not being pervasive throughout the Commonwealth.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kentucky_State_Visit_Data&diff=2475Kentucky State Visit Data2007-03-26T16:43:54Z<p>Mbard: /* John Higginbotham */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Mark Rutledge==<br />
<br />
Mark is the commissioner of the Commonwealth Office of Technology.<br />
<br />
*Kentucky they have a procurement code<br />
**Except for utilties<br />
**Whatever territory they are in, they use the LEC<br />
**What they did was develop a statewide mechanism<br />
***This will allow standard pricing structure throughtout the state<br />
***Developed partnerships through contracting that is managed by BellSouth now AT&amp;T---who then sub-contracted w/ local<br />
***Gave them a postalized rate for all connection<br />
**Commonwealth Office of Technology (COT) then adds a group of services to the telco <br />
***Internal wiring and management, router management &amp; install, e-mail<br />
*Thinks that the de-regulation by legislature helps spur broadband deployment across the state<br />
**De-reg coupled w/ KIH helped telcos re-coup their investment<br />
**Coupled w/ centralized purchasing authority (COT), you gain enormous efficencies<br />
**Also commits to a period of time to allow for the build-out to occur<br />
*KEN<br />
**KEN is a logical network that has no physical infrastructure—logical configurations to create a virtual circuit<br />
**Libraries can join KEN<br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Develop a mechanism to develop a mechanism whereby libraries can aggregate demand<br />
**Show them a business case via the aggregated demand, coupled with multi-year contract to pay off any build out that would be required<br />
**This is how they were able to get good rates for their network<br />
**If telcos have to compete for each bid, they won’t cut the margins as much<br />
**Willing to help w/ telco negotiations<br />
*Final Thoughts from Mark<br />
**Basically, they think the postalized rates coupled with long term contract incent AT&amp;T to build connectivity<br />
<br />
==Barry Bishop==<br />
<br />
Barry is the VP of Wireline Services at Windstream, the number two telco provider in Kentucky<br />
<br />
*Footprint of Windstream<br />
**Wireline around Lexington, London, Ashley, Campbell, some out west.<br />
**In 16 other states<br />
***Merger of Alltel &amp; Valor wire lines<br />
**Serves a variety of population density &amp; demographics<br />
*Broadband<br />
**General offering of DSL<br />
***DSLAM &amp; SADSLAM (does not reside in main switch office) 80% of footprint is covered<br />
***In new builds, they are doing fiber to the premise<br />
***Does not market video at this time<br />
***Will be up to mid to late 80s<br />
**Connect Kentucky is helping to determine where to deploy<br />
**Statewide network<br />
***Provider to KAPEN (higher education network) 100 Mb—is prime contractor<br />
****Run backbone and run last mile where they are the ILEC—partner with others in their territory<br />
**Does not connect libraries<br />
***Can provide DSL or dedicated circuit to connect broadband<br />
**Everyone can have broadband (they will run T1)<br />
***It is a question of affordable broadband<br />
*Connect Kentucky<br />
**Partner &amp; investor in CK from the get go<br />
**They are great advocates for broadband deployment<br />
**Not out there beating them up over broadband<br />
**Gets leads from CK on who doesn’t have broadband<br />
**Got everyone more focused<br />
**Would not have spread it as evenly as they would have if CK hadn’t acted as a catalyst<br />
**Would prioritized broadband deployment based upon demand (and CK help id the demand or would come straight from customers)<br />
*CLECs<br />
**Several CLEC competitors<br />
**3 facilities-based Telcos (Municipal, County &amp; Windstream) in one city<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Last 10-15 percent<br />
**Computer ownership..everyone that wants has<br />
**1600 new sites w/ broadband in 2k6 (in all 15 states)<br />
*Bills<br />
**Beneficiaries of some of the bills, but were rolling out broadband anyway.<br />
*What factors roll out broadband<br />
**Demand and competition<br />
**Willing to let others set up ISP while they decided what to do with broadband<br />
*Take rate<br />
**Depends on the site<br />
***Can put in sites for 8-10k all the way up to $250,000;<br />
***25% penetration across the state<br />
****Good marketing helped draw the people in (Connect Kentucky played a crucial part in that)<br />
***10% before investment<br />
*Gates Recommendations<br />
**Regional library approach (would like to have something like that<br />
***Great RFP proposal<br />
***Then share a backbone internet connection<br />
<br />
==AT&amp;T==<br />
<br />
Joan Coleman President of AT&amp;T and Amy Scarborough Director of Legislative and External Affairs<br />
<br />
*They think they are building out ok and have a significant amount of deployment to public libraries<br />
*Will have 100% broadband availability by the end of the year<br />
*Merger conditions and what it means in Kentucky<br />
**Commitment of 100% broadband deployment by the end of the year<br />
**Relationship with WildBlue to deploy to areas un-served areas of the state<br />
*Issues affecting the broadband deployment in the state<br />
**Looks to Connect Kentucky to help (especially w/ de-regulation)<br />
**Barriers of entry because of geography<br />
**Wants to be the only provider for their customers<br />
**Since 2004 to beginning in ’06 all deployment was to communities of less than 900<br />
*Success factors<br />
**Investment in backbone to increase deployment<br />
**Difficult to get infrastructure to get on the backbone E.g. placement of DSLAMs<br />
**Put in remote terminals in rural areas<br />
**Re-using equipment—when replaced, old equipment goes to where it hasn’t been deployed before<br />
*Take Rate<br />
**Some areas with a lot of wealth that they didn’t think exist before—when AT&amp;T deployed, they used DSL for creative activities<br />
***E.g. Editing books online, communities with professors, home businesses<br />
**35.95 for a 1.5 Mb connection<br />
**Thinks that libraries can get more if they pay for more<br />
*Leg and/or Policy changes<br />
**IPTV is a driver of deployment in every state<br />
**Video Franchising--<br />
*House Bill 550<br />
**Set up the opportunity for providers to get grants, but appropriation was not made<br />
**May get appropriation in the future<br />
**Money from appropriation may go to help a failing dam<br />
**AT&amp;T likes the grant because they are able to apply<br />
***Not intended for overbuild; is for un-served areas<br />
*Broadband Task Force<br />
**Has disbanded<br />
**Looked @ deployment at the time<br />
**Sees Connect Kentucky as the task force (views task force as a child of legislative process)<br />
**Did good job of discussing issues @ margin and bringing together legislators<br />
**Was put in place as an accountability measure<br />
*Relationship w/ Wild Blue<br />
**Does not know any details<br />
**Partnering w/ them for deployment opportunities<br />
**In areas where AT&amp;T is not deploying, WildBlue is the provider<br />
**Connect Kentucky is working to bring down the cost via partnership<br />
*KEN<br />
**Coordinating partner w/ KIH2<br />
**Schools were a part of KIH2<br />
**There was a lot of work done to get connections out to each school district as part of KIH2<br />
**Worked to get the infrastructure out there<br />
**17 Partners coming together because of KIH(1)<br />
***Which partner gets which school is dependent on ILEC<br />
*What recommendations do you have for us?<br />
**Removing regulatory barriers to allowing providers to come in and offer service<br />
***Did not want to have to re-sell broadband to CLEC---shares POTS but didn’t want to sell DSLAM access<br />
**Infrastructure is in place and seeing if there is an issue—the question is that is the broadband connectivity enough and is it affordable?<br />
**A lot of work has been done and continues to be done to spur deployment<br />
**Another avenue is in Science, Engineering and Math—Kentucky has entities has content and then to build broadband out using Science and math as a driver, which will in turn allow the libraries to be more attractive<br />
<br />
==Mark David Gross Chairmen Kentucky Public Service Commission==<br />
<br />
*Legislation<br />
**2 or 3 years ago a bill was passed to de-regulate broadband provisions from the commission’s jurisdiction<br />
**Proceeding session there was a deal that de-regulated local telephone service<br />
**Bills to de-regulate telecommunications (much less than 3 ½ years ago)<br />
**Issue: PSC does not reg. cable so telephone argued that they are regulated but cable is not<br />
**Impact<br />
***De-reg of broadband has been helpful in getting broadband deployment in the state<br />
***Telcos said they couldn’t deploy because of PSC<br />
****To get de-reg, the ILECs would have to provision broadband in rural<br />
***Doesn’t think 92% of deployment w/out de-regulation<br />
***Bell South was able to sell investment to corporate b/c then they wouldn’t need to share facilities<br />
***Thinks they have done a good job, but there are pockets that are unserved<br />
***Wife (school board) says that usage by children is great!<br />
*How much oversight do you have?<br />
**Telcos<br />
***Virtually none<br />
***They ask for some reporting, which they give freely <br />
***Could not have reporting requirement<br />
***Complaints &amp; advertising oversight<br />
***Regulates the basic phone service with price (basic local service w/ no frills) approx 20-25%<br />
***De-reg has not increased complaints<br />
**Fully regulate the power companies for their power utilities<br />
***But not for broadband<br />
***Duke KY has expressed interest &amp; had pilot project of broadband over powerlines<br />
**In some rural areas, the public utilities offer cable<br />
*Power company bill<br />
**Bill to allow power companies to drive broadband<br />
**Main purpose: sell propane and other services (not broadband)<br />
*Problem in his mind is that getting broadband in the last 8% of the state where the population density is low, there is a fixed, low income preventing them from adopting<br />
*Has concerns and doubts that the last 8% will be completed<br />
*Thinks that the wireless from DCI is interesting but not sure if wireless will be a viable solution for eastern KY<br />
*How he characterized state of broadband:<br />
**Vastly improved since 2004<br />
**Gets better each month<br />
**Thinks it will be interesting to see how close to 100% they actually get<br />
**High-speed (anything but dial-up)…thinks most can get it<br />
**Been happy w/ CK and telephone providers<br />
**Pleasantly surprised—though they were being lied to about de-reg promises<br />
**Broadband task force appointed by legislator w/ cross-section of people to monitor what the telcos were doing to ensure compliance<br />
***Issued a report and not sure if it is still around<br />
**Knew that they must follow through in order to get land line de-reg<br />
*KEN<br />
**Not involved in KEN<br />
**Had not even heard of the project<br />
*Success factors of 92% <br />
**The entities that have had the abilities to deploy broadband has been freed up by decision maker (e.g. corporate) that the numbers work. Even though the cost is high, they can make it up in some of the more urban areas to subsidize this high cost<br />
**Skeptical of broadband de-reg, but is now a supporter<br />
**The hue and cry of folks in rural Kentucky who want what their cousins in urban areas has<br />
***Thinks the companies have been responsive to this cry—they want to make profit and if it makes sense, they will deploy<br />
**Governor has done a good job of getting the word out and hammering the issue<br />
***The public is aware of it b/c the governor has said it, president says it and federal people say it<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geography<br />
**Socio-economic status &amp; abilities<br />
***Does not want or can not afford the connection<br />
***These people are the ones libraries should be attracting<br />
*Bill and Melinda Gates Interventions<br />
**Wondering if there would be some way to piggy back off of access that is already in the community<br />
**College professor @ SE Community College…wanted high speed @ home and couldn’t get it…lived within several hundred yards of fiber<br />
**Wonders if there could be greater collaboration between public libraries and other public institutions<br />
<br />
==John Higginbotham==<br />
<br />
John is the superintendent of the Frankfort plant board that provides cable TV, telecom, water, power, Internet, and security services.<br />
<br />
*Services they provide<br />
**Electric and Water Plant Board of the city of Frankfort<br />
**Muninciple provided---Independent of the city gov’t <br />
**Provide Electric, Water, Cable (1952), Telecom (CLEC—ILEC is AT&amp;T/Bell South), Broadband (2001)<br />
***Cannot subsidize cable and telcom w/ Water and Electric<br />
***All three are separate businesses<br />
**Also go to Whitford county and Shelby county<br />
**Non-profit organization<br />
**10,000 residential and commercial telco lines, 9700 Internet Access, 17,000 cable<br />
***Uses POTS and Cable VOIP (approx 60% of the residential lines)<br />
***Interconnected city school district to central office then out to Commonwealth Office of Technology (gave them the fiber network)<br />
***Provided 2 Mb synchronous fiber link that FPB gives to them @ retail for staff<br />
***Provided a 8 Mb 1 Mb up cable modem<br />
***Partners with lib for community taping industry<br />
**Owns a network to connect state offices<br />
**40 municipal electric companies (12 or 13 that is in the cable/telcom)<br />
***They have been on the leading edge of broadband; leaving the private sector behind<br />
*Important Factors that are affecting broadband deployment<br />
**Cost of upgrading equipment was large (only 512K until the new equipment was in place<br />
***Now they need to go even faster<br />
**Realized that they needed to make broadband available to library after library board was planning to build their new building<br />
**2 Mb for $500 /month &amp; cable for $100 / month<br />
**Have a few hundred homes left to wire<br />
*Biggest Barrier to Broadband<br />
**Cost and ability to make revenue back on the expenditure<br />
***Low population density<br />
**Reaching some of the really rural areas (nearly $10,000/mile to wire)<br />
**Topography of the county is large<br />
**Adelphia (now bought by Time Warner) did not pay for upgrades to infrastructure<br />
*Recommendations for Gates foundation<br />
**Will email us later<br />
**Interface with the library<br />
<br />
==Kirk Poling==<br />
<br />
Kirk works for Insight Communications, the largest cable company in Kentucky, but has only been with the company for 6 months. Insight is a privately held company (no public scrutiny).<br />
<br />
*Has worked for many years on broadband deployment to various<br />
*Trying to figure out how to get into the business market<br />
*$1 Billion of revenue every year (7th largest)<br />
*Is looking for a way to build out the fiber to business and figure out how to build infrastructure<br />
*Trying to determine where there is a need (serves KY, IL, IN and OH)<br />
<br />
<br />
*Do you serve libraries?<br />
**They do have some libraries—do not have exact numbers<br />
**Active in K12 space and is working on Higher Ed <br />
*The factors that go into business decisions<br />
**Build it they will come (attitude of the early 2000s), but ineffective<br />
**Do not build it but hope they will come is the new attitude<br />
**His philosophy is that it is important to look into both sides of the equation<br />
**Want to quantify ROI on 12-36 months<br />
**Looks at each situation case by case<br />
**Fiber to the business; schools, universities, and libs (not to the home)<br />
**Trying to figure out how to spread out the up-front costs for deployment<br />
**No plans for FTTH deployment<br />
*B&amp;M Gates interventions<br />
**I don’t know<br />
**IF you have value-added resource and application would be great<br />
**Partner w/ public service organization<br />
**Lack of dollars and cents (although cost of bandwidth is dropping)<br />
**Look at each opportunity to determine feasibility<br />
*What do you think of CK?<br />
**Great initiative (let’s get w/ the companies to get deployment)<br />
**Tying to get Insight involved in CK activities<br />
**Thinks that Insight is a good way to deploy broadband ($1 billion of revenue to spend)<br />
**Great to help consumers and now branching out to business<br />
<br />
==David Hemingway==<br />
<br />
David is a Senior Account Executive at Digital Connections, Inc. (a infrastructure company)<br />
<br />
*What is DCI?<br />
**Carrier to ISP is not a function they normally have fulfilled<br />
**DCI started as a data networking company in 1992<br />
**@ the time that frame relay was taking hold<br />
**Survived the crash<br />
**Stumbled onto Connect Kentucky<br />
**Had done several wireless integrations<br />
*Putting together 7 conty wi-fi network<br />
**Hooking up the service is now done w/ a partner<br />
**Synergy is providing the Internet connectivity, hooking up, marketing and retailing of the service<br />
**DCI provides the access points and backhaul<br />
**900 MHz spectrum is used (non line of site and unlicensed)<br />
***looked @ 700 MHz, but is owned by someone who does not want to lease to DCI<br />
**Will lease the tower from Crown Castle (a tower management company)<br />
***Has a radio to go out to customers and then a separate radio to act as a back haul<br />
**2600 sq mi<br />
**Finish up deployment by the end of the year (2007)<br />
**Speeds <br />
***512k down (@29.95) to 2.5 Mb down <br />
***Maximum speed is somewhere 3.0 Mb<br />
*Do you have to provide services to some public entitites?<br />
**10% rebate has to go back to people helping to fund portions of the network<br />
**Offer a free hotspot to all counties as part of the contract (all bandwidth is free)<br />
*Taking customers away?<br />
**Only satellite people for the most part (in most cases)<br />
**There are places where there will be overlap w/ wire companies<br />
*Is this service going well?<br />
**Not deployed yet<br />
**Have completed beta test that exceeded expectations<br />
**Moving forward on more deployment<br />
**Other providers seem to be done well<br />
**46 WISPs in Indiana using Motorola equipment that they will be using<br />
**20-25 miles is max (going to go to 10 mi) $85,000 per tower<br />
**Profitable @ 5400 in seven counties (13-15% consumers in the county)<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Foundation<br />
**Maybe some uses for libraries<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Samantha Finke @ ConnectKY===<br />
<br />
As far as the success factor I would have to say that I think the biggest reason Kentucky has been successful has been the drive of our local communities and ConnectKentucky’s grass roots efforts. We are also lucky to have several legislators who are very passionate about seeing Kentucky succeed and who recognize the role that technology, particularly broadband access, plays into that success. Thus, I don’t think our success can be attributed to any one thing – instead I think the combination of public, private and local efforts has made many folks more aware of technology and the need to build infrastructure and implement applications to support growth. Kentucky is by no means perfect but we are definitely making great strides in the availability, awareness and adoption of technology!<br />
<br />
I keep hearing the statement Nancy made about how technology centers are just not necessary in the presence of libraries and think that was a GREAT point. I think one thing that we all need to advocate at the state and local level, particularly in Kentucky, is getting people to recognize that. I agree there is no point in wasting more resources to build something in addition to what already exists in libraries. Instead, the resources that have been allocated for technology centers and the like should be put into libraries to enable them to serve as the learning/technological center of the community – it just makes the most sense. This way both the libraries and their communities will benefit. Also, with the level of broadband connectivity that now exists in KY, I think it would be very easy to reinforce libraries as the centerpiece of the community again. In recent years I think that libraries have unfortunately been neglected by states. As a result, my speculation is that those that aren’t up-to-date with the technological age have probably been disregarded by some, whereas those that are up-to-date with technology have probably seen a resurgence in activity – now that is just pure speculation on my part. In any case, technology is definitely going to play a major role in the future of libraries. I think they definitely should be the hub of the community and I see interactive learning classes, programs, and such to be huge opportunities for libraries. I feel very strongly that Kentucky could use funds from the Gate’s Foundation to boost libraries with technological and innovative learning programs, which in turn would draw more of the community in and bring libraries back to the stage they belong – a centerpiece for the community.<br />
<br />
===Deborah Clayton===<br />
<br />
The lack of it not being pervasive throughout the Commonwealth.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Kentucky_State_Visit_Data&diff=2474Kentucky State Visit Data2007-03-26T16:43:15Z<p>Mbard: /* Follow-ups */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Mark Rutledge==<br />
<br />
Mark is the commissioner of the Commonwealth Office of Technology.<br />
<br />
*Kentucky they have a procurement code<br />
**Except for utilties<br />
**Whatever territory they are in, they use the LEC<br />
**What they did was develop a statewide mechanism<br />
***This will allow standard pricing structure throughtout the state<br />
***Developed partnerships through contracting that is managed by BellSouth now AT&amp;T---who then sub-contracted w/ local<br />
***Gave them a postalized rate for all connection<br />
**Commonwealth Office of Technology (COT) then adds a group of services to the telco <br />
***Internal wiring and management, router management &amp; install, e-mail<br />
*Thinks that the de-regulation by legislature helps spur broadband deployment across the state<br />
**De-reg coupled w/ KIH helped telcos re-coup their investment<br />
**Coupled w/ centralized purchasing authority (COT), you gain enormous efficencies<br />
**Also commits to a period of time to allow for the build-out to occur<br />
*KEN<br />
**KEN is a logical network that has no physical infrastructure—logical configurations to create a virtual circuit<br />
**Libraries can join KEN<br />
*B&amp;M Gates<br />
**Develop a mechanism to develop a mechanism whereby libraries can aggregate demand<br />
**Show them a business case via the aggregated demand, coupled with multi-year contract to pay off any build out that would be required<br />
**This is how they were able to get good rates for their network<br />
**If telcos have to compete for each bid, they won’t cut the margins as much<br />
**Willing to help w/ telco negotiations<br />
*Final Thoughts from Mark<br />
**Basically, they think the postalized rates coupled with long term contract incent AT&amp;T to build connectivity<br />
<br />
==Barry Bishop==<br />
<br />
Barry is the VP of Wireline Services at Windstream, the number two telco provider in Kentucky<br />
<br />
*Footprint of Windstream<br />
**Wireline around Lexington, London, Ashley, Campbell, some out west.<br />
**In 16 other states<br />
***Merger of Alltel &amp; Valor wire lines<br />
**Serves a variety of population density &amp; demographics<br />
*Broadband<br />
**General offering of DSL<br />
***DSLAM &amp; SADSLAM (does not reside in main switch office) 80% of footprint is covered<br />
***In new builds, they are doing fiber to the premise<br />
***Does not market video at this time<br />
***Will be up to mid to late 80s<br />
**Connect Kentucky is helping to determine where to deploy<br />
**Statewide network<br />
***Provider to KAPEN (higher education network) 100 Mb—is prime contractor<br />
****Run backbone and run last mile where they are the ILEC—partner with others in their territory<br />
**Does not connect libraries<br />
***Can provide DSL or dedicated circuit to connect broadband<br />
**Everyone can have broadband (they will run T1)<br />
***It is a question of affordable broadband<br />
*Connect Kentucky<br />
**Partner &amp; investor in CK from the get go<br />
**They are great advocates for broadband deployment<br />
**Not out there beating them up over broadband<br />
**Gets leads from CK on who doesn’t have broadband<br />
**Got everyone more focused<br />
**Would not have spread it as evenly as they would have if CK hadn’t acted as a catalyst<br />
**Would prioritized broadband deployment based upon demand (and CK help id the demand or would come straight from customers)<br />
*CLECs<br />
**Several CLEC competitors<br />
**3 facilities-based Telcos (Municipal, County &amp; Windstream) in one city<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Last 10-15 percent<br />
**Computer ownership..everyone that wants has<br />
**1600 new sites w/ broadband in 2k6 (in all 15 states)<br />
*Bills<br />
**Beneficiaries of some of the bills, but were rolling out broadband anyway.<br />
*What factors roll out broadband<br />
**Demand and competition<br />
**Willing to let others set up ISP while they decided what to do with broadband<br />
*Take rate<br />
**Depends on the site<br />
***Can put in sites for 8-10k all the way up to $250,000;<br />
***25% penetration across the state<br />
****Good marketing helped draw the people in (Connect Kentucky played a crucial part in that)<br />
***10% before investment<br />
*Gates Recommendations<br />
**Regional library approach (would like to have something like that<br />
***Great RFP proposal<br />
***Then share a backbone internet connection<br />
<br />
==AT&amp;T==<br />
<br />
Joan Coleman President of AT&amp;T and Amy Scarborough Director of Legislative and External Affairs<br />
<br />
*They think they are building out ok and have a significant amount of deployment to public libraries<br />
*Will have 100% broadband availability by the end of the year<br />
*Merger conditions and what it means in Kentucky<br />
**Commitment of 100% broadband deployment by the end of the year<br />
**Relationship with WildBlue to deploy to areas un-served areas of the state<br />
*Issues affecting the broadband deployment in the state<br />
**Looks to Connect Kentucky to help (especially w/ de-regulation)<br />
**Barriers of entry because of geography<br />
**Wants to be the only provider for their customers<br />
**Since 2004 to beginning in ’06 all deployment was to communities of less than 900<br />
*Success factors<br />
**Investment in backbone to increase deployment<br />
**Difficult to get infrastructure to get on the backbone E.g. placement of DSLAMs<br />
**Put in remote terminals in rural areas<br />
**Re-using equipment—when replaced, old equipment goes to where it hasn’t been deployed before<br />
*Take Rate<br />
**Some areas with a lot of wealth that they didn’t think exist before—when AT&amp;T deployed, they used DSL for creative activities<br />
***E.g. Editing books online, communities with professors, home businesses<br />
**35.95 for a 1.5 Mb connection<br />
**Thinks that libraries can get more if they pay for more<br />
*Leg and/or Policy changes<br />
**IPTV is a driver of deployment in every state<br />
**Video Franchising--<br />
*House Bill 550<br />
**Set up the opportunity for providers to get grants, but appropriation was not made<br />
**May get appropriation in the future<br />
**Money from appropriation may go to help a failing dam<br />
**AT&amp;T likes the grant because they are able to apply<br />
***Not intended for overbuild; is for un-served areas<br />
*Broadband Task Force<br />
**Has disbanded<br />
**Looked @ deployment at the time<br />
**Sees Connect Kentucky as the task force (views task force as a child of legislative process)<br />
**Did good job of discussing issues @ margin and bringing together legislators<br />
**Was put in place as an accountability measure<br />
*Relationship w/ Wild Blue<br />
**Does not know any details<br />
**Partnering w/ them for deployment opportunities<br />
**In areas where AT&amp;T is not deploying, WildBlue is the provider<br />
**Connect Kentucky is working to bring down the cost via partnership<br />
*KEN<br />
**Coordinating partner w/ KIH2<br />
**Schools were a part of KIH2<br />
**There was a lot of work done to get connections out to each school district as part of KIH2<br />
**Worked to get the infrastructure out there<br />
**17 Partners coming together because of KIH(1)<br />
***Which partner gets which school is dependent on ILEC<br />
*What recommendations do you have for us?<br />
**Removing regulatory barriers to allowing providers to come in and offer service<br />
***Did not want to have to re-sell broadband to CLEC---shares POTS but didn’t want to sell DSLAM access<br />
**Infrastructure is in place and seeing if there is an issue—the question is that is the broadband connectivity enough and is it affordable?<br />
**A lot of work has been done and continues to be done to spur deployment<br />
**Another avenue is in Science, Engineering and Math—Kentucky has entities has content and then to build broadband out using Science and math as a driver, which will in turn allow the libraries to be more attractive<br />
<br />
==Mark David Gross Chairmen Kentucky Public Service Commission==<br />
<br />
*Legislation<br />
**2 or 3 years ago a bill was passed to de-regulate broadband provisions from the commission’s jurisdiction<br />
**Proceeding session there was a deal that de-regulated local telephone service<br />
**Bills to de-regulate telecommunications (much less than 3 ½ years ago)<br />
**Issue: PSC does not reg. cable so telephone argued that they are regulated but cable is not<br />
**Impact<br />
***De-reg of broadband has been helpful in getting broadband deployment in the state<br />
***Telcos said they couldn’t deploy because of PSC<br />
****To get de-reg, the ILECs would have to provision broadband in rural<br />
***Doesn’t think 92% of deployment w/out de-regulation<br />
***Bell South was able to sell investment to corporate b/c then they wouldn’t need to share facilities<br />
***Thinks they have done a good job, but there are pockets that are unserved<br />
***Wife (school board) says that usage by children is great!<br />
*How much oversight do you have?<br />
**Telcos<br />
***Virtually none<br />
***They ask for some reporting, which they give freely <br />
***Could not have reporting requirement<br />
***Complaints &amp; advertising oversight<br />
***Regulates the basic phone service with price (basic local service w/ no frills) approx 20-25%<br />
***De-reg has not increased complaints<br />
**Fully regulate the power companies for their power utilities<br />
***But not for broadband<br />
***Duke KY has expressed interest &amp; had pilot project of broadband over powerlines<br />
**In some rural areas, the public utilities offer cable<br />
*Power company bill<br />
**Bill to allow power companies to drive broadband<br />
**Main purpose: sell propane and other services (not broadband)<br />
*Problem in his mind is that getting broadband in the last 8% of the state where the population density is low, there is a fixed, low income preventing them from adopting<br />
*Has concerns and doubts that the last 8% will be completed<br />
*Thinks that the wireless from DCI is interesting but not sure if wireless will be a viable solution for eastern KY<br />
*How he characterized state of broadband:<br />
**Vastly improved since 2004<br />
**Gets better each month<br />
**Thinks it will be interesting to see how close to 100% they actually get<br />
**High-speed (anything but dial-up)…thinks most can get it<br />
**Been happy w/ CK and telephone providers<br />
**Pleasantly surprised—though they were being lied to about de-reg promises<br />
**Broadband task force appointed by legislator w/ cross-section of people to monitor what the telcos were doing to ensure compliance<br />
***Issued a report and not sure if it is still around<br />
**Knew that they must follow through in order to get land line de-reg<br />
*KEN<br />
**Not involved in KEN<br />
**Had not even heard of the project<br />
*Success factors of 92% <br />
**The entities that have had the abilities to deploy broadband has been freed up by decision maker (e.g. corporate) that the numbers work. Even though the cost is high, they can make it up in some of the more urban areas to subsidize this high cost<br />
**Skeptical of broadband de-reg, but is now a supporter<br />
**The hue and cry of folks in rural Kentucky who want what their cousins in urban areas has<br />
***Thinks the companies have been responsive to this cry—they want to make profit and if it makes sense, they will deploy<br />
**Governor has done a good job of getting the word out and hammering the issue<br />
***The public is aware of it b/c the governor has said it, president says it and federal people say it<br />
*Barriers<br />
**Geography<br />
**Socio-economic status &amp; abilities<br />
***Does not want or can not afford the connection<br />
***These people are the ones libraries should be attracting<br />
*Bill and Melinda Gates Interventions<br />
**Wondering if there would be some way to piggy back off of access that is already in the community<br />
**College professor @ SE Community College…wanted high speed @ home and couldn’t get it…lived within several hundred yards of fiber<br />
**Wonders if there could be greater collaboration between public libraries and other public institutions<br />
<br />
===John Higginbotham===<br />
<br />
John is the superintendent of the Frankfort plant board that provides cable TV, telecom, water, power, Internet, and security services.<br />
<br />
*Services they provide<br />
**Electric and Water Plant Board of the city of Frankfort<br />
**Muninciple provided---Independent of the city gov’t <br />
**Provide Electric, Water, Cable (1952), Telecom (CLEC—ILEC is AT&amp;T/Bell South), Broadband (2001)<br />
***Cannot subsidize cable and telcom w/ Water and Electric<br />
***All three are separate businesses<br />
**Also go to Whitford county and Shelby county<br />
**Non-profit organization<br />
**10,000 residential and commercial telco lines, 9700 Internet Access, 17,000 cable<br />
***Uses POTS and Cable VOIP (approx 60% of the residential lines)<br />
***Interconnected city school district to central office then out to Commonwealth Office of Technology (gave them the fiber network)<br />
***Provided 2 Mb synchronous fiber link that FPB gives to them @ retail for staff<br />
***Provided a 8 Mb 1 Mb up cable modem<br />
***Partners with lib for community taping industry<br />
**Owns a network to connect state offices<br />
**40 municipal electric companies (12 or 13 that is in the cable/telcom)<br />
***They have been on the leading edge of broadband; leaving the private sector behind<br />
*Important Factors that are affecting broadband deployment<br />
**Cost of upgrading equipment was large (only 512K until the new equipment was in place<br />
***Now they need to go even faster<br />
**Realized that they needed to make broadband available to library after library board was planning to build their new building<br />
**2 Mb for $500 /month &amp; cable for $100 / month<br />
**Have a few hundred homes left to wire<br />
*Biggest Barrier to Broadband<br />
**Cost and ability to make revenue back on the expenditure<br />
***Low population density<br />
**Reaching some of the really rural areas (nearly $10,000/mile to wire)<br />
**Topography of the county is large<br />
**Adelphia (now bought by Time Warner) did not pay for upgrades to infrastructure<br />
*Recommendations for Gates foundation<br />
**Will email us later<br />
**Interface with the library<br />
<br />
==Kirk Poling==<br />
<br />
Kirk works for Insight Communications, the largest cable company in Kentucky, but has only been with the company for 6 months. Insight is a privately held company (no public scrutiny).<br />
<br />
*Has worked for many years on broadband deployment to various<br />
*Trying to figure out how to get into the business market<br />
*$1 Billion of revenue every year (7th largest)<br />
*Is looking for a way to build out the fiber to business and figure out how to build infrastructure<br />
*Trying to determine where there is a need (serves KY, IL, IN and OH)<br />
<br />
<br />
*Do you serve libraries?<br />
**They do have some libraries—do not have exact numbers<br />
**Active in K12 space and is working on Higher Ed <br />
*The factors that go into business decisions<br />
**Build it they will come (attitude of the early 2000s), but ineffective<br />
**Do not build it but hope they will come is the new attitude<br />
**His philosophy is that it is important to look into both sides of the equation<br />
**Want to quantify ROI on 12-36 months<br />
**Looks at each situation case by case<br />
**Fiber to the business; schools, universities, and libs (not to the home)<br />
**Trying to figure out how to spread out the up-front costs for deployment<br />
**No plans for FTTH deployment<br />
*B&amp;M Gates interventions<br />
**I don’t know<br />
**IF you have value-added resource and application would be great<br />
**Partner w/ public service organization<br />
**Lack of dollars and cents (although cost of bandwidth is dropping)<br />
**Look at each opportunity to determine feasibility<br />
*What do you think of CK?<br />
**Great initiative (let’s get w/ the companies to get deployment)<br />
**Tying to get Insight involved in CK activities<br />
**Thinks that Insight is a good way to deploy broadband ($1 billion of revenue to spend)<br />
**Great to help consumers and now branching out to business<br />
<br />
==David Hemingway==<br />
<br />
David is a Senior Account Executive at Digital Connections, Inc. (a infrastructure company)<br />
<br />
*What is DCI?<br />
**Carrier to ISP is not a function they normally have fulfilled<br />
**DCI started as a data networking company in 1992<br />
**@ the time that frame relay was taking hold<br />
**Survived the crash<br />
**Stumbled onto Connect Kentucky<br />
**Had done several wireless integrations<br />
*Putting together 7 conty wi-fi network<br />
**Hooking up the service is now done w/ a partner<br />
**Synergy is providing the Internet connectivity, hooking up, marketing and retailing of the service<br />
**DCI provides the access points and backhaul<br />
**900 MHz spectrum is used (non line of site and unlicensed)<br />
***looked @ 700 MHz, but is owned by someone who does not want to lease to DCI<br />
**Will lease the tower from Crown Castle (a tower management company)<br />
***Has a radio to go out to customers and then a separate radio to act as a back haul<br />
**2600 sq mi<br />
**Finish up deployment by the end of the year (2007)<br />
**Speeds <br />
***512k down (@29.95) to 2.5 Mb down <br />
***Maximum speed is somewhere 3.0 Mb<br />
*Do you have to provide services to some public entitites?<br />
**10% rebate has to go back to people helping to fund portions of the network<br />
**Offer a free hotspot to all counties as part of the contract (all bandwidth is free)<br />
*Taking customers away?<br />
**Only satellite people for the most part (in most cases)<br />
**There are places where there will be overlap w/ wire companies<br />
*Is this service going well?<br />
**Not deployed yet<br />
**Have completed beta test that exceeded expectations<br />
**Moving forward on more deployment<br />
**Other providers seem to be done well<br />
**46 WISPs in Indiana using Motorola equipment that they will be using<br />
**20-25 miles is max (going to go to 10 mi) $85,000 per tower<br />
**Profitable @ 5400 in seven counties (13-15% consumers in the county)<br />
*B&amp;M Gates Foundation<br />
**Maybe some uses for libraries<br />
<br />
==Follow-ups==<br />
===Samantha Finke @ ConnectKY===<br />
<br />
As far as the success factor I would have to say that I think the biggest reason Kentucky has been successful has been the drive of our local communities and ConnectKentucky’s grass roots efforts. We are also lucky to have several legislators who are very passionate about seeing Kentucky succeed and who recognize the role that technology, particularly broadband access, plays into that success. Thus, I don’t think our success can be attributed to any one thing – instead I think the combination of public, private and local efforts has made many folks more aware of technology and the need to build infrastructure and implement applications to support growth. Kentucky is by no means perfect but we are definitely making great strides in the availability, awareness and adoption of technology!<br />
<br />
I keep hearing the statement Nancy made about how technology centers are just not necessary in the presence of libraries and think that was a GREAT point. I think one thing that we all need to advocate at the state and local level, particularly in Kentucky, is getting people to recognize that. I agree there is no point in wasting more resources to build something in addition to what already exists in libraries. Instead, the resources that have been allocated for technology centers and the like should be put into libraries to enable them to serve as the learning/technological center of the community – it just makes the most sense. This way both the libraries and their communities will benefit. Also, with the level of broadband connectivity that now exists in KY, I think it would be very easy to reinforce libraries as the centerpiece of the community again. In recent years I think that libraries have unfortunately been neglected by states. As a result, my speculation is that those that aren’t up-to-date with the technological age have probably been disregarded by some, whereas those that are up-to-date with technology have probably seen a resurgence in activity – now that is just pure speculation on my part. In any case, technology is definitely going to play a major role in the future of libraries. I think they definitely should be the hub of the community and I see interactive learning classes, programs, and such to be huge opportunities for libraries. I feel very strongly that Kentucky could use funds from the Gate’s Foundation to boost libraries with technological and innovative learning programs, which in turn would draw more of the community in and bring libraries back to the stage they belong – a centerpiece for the community.<br />
<br />
===Deborah Clayton===<br />
<br />
The lack of it not being pervasive throughout the Commonwealth.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Missouri_State_Visit_Data&diff=2451Missouri State Visit Data2007-03-19T04:04:16Z<p>Mbard: /* Mark */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
<br />
==Lynne==<br />
<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Mark Redding===<br />
<br />
Mark is the Executive Deputy Secretary of State and used to work in the state budget office at the time of MOREnet's creation<br />
<br />
Exec Summary<br />
<br />
*There are many champions within MO that made this happen (not just one)<br />
*Collaboration between various state agencies (in MO case Higher Ed, Library, K12, Budget Office and Governor’s Office) is very important in his mind for success<br />
*One thing we haven’t talked about before is collaborating with the state budget office. Had Mark not intervened in 2002, K12 may have pulled out of MORENET, which would have pulled some funding.<br />
<br />
Mark worked for the state budget office from 1993-2003. While there, he saw a need to bring information technology to state government as a way of reducing costs (to which he encountered reisistance from the state data processing people. Basically, Mark is a budge analyst at heart and enjoys figuring out how to pay for things and the politics involved to ensure that the money makes it through to the legislators.<br />
<br />
Here is Mark’s take on the creation and continuation of MORENET<br />
*A group of individuals got together to discuss how to get Missouri connected<br />
**Bill Mitchell from the Higher Ed Community<br />
**Elden Wallace (also of higher ed community, but used to work at state governor’s office<br />
**Mike Hartsmann from the Governor’s Office<br />
**State Librarian (Anne ?) (<br />
***Additional note Mark is married to one of the employees of the state library<br />
**Mark (at the state budget office)<br />
*They wanted to figure out how to connect the higher ed, K12 and libraries using a common network platform<br />
*The group worked collaboratively to establish MORENET and ensure that MORENET continued to exist<br />
**Received some seed money from State Budget’s office<br />
**Approrpriation originally appeared in 3 separate budget requests<br />
***Office of administration (for libs) and then was transferred to state library<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
**During 2002 budget crunch, K12 was looking to cut funding to MORENET<br />
***But Mark (working as the de facto budget director for the state) removed appropriation from K12 budget and placed it into the higher ed approps (which would prevent Ed. Dept. from slashing funding <br />
**Presently, MORENET is funded by 2 appropriations<br />
***One to state library for last mile to libs and databases<br />
***One to higher ed to pay for backbone and last mile to k12 and higher ed<br />
**The group collaborated to make educational/maketing literature and to determine bandwidth requirements for entities (we’l<br />
*Thinks MORENET helped spur broadband deployment (eg. Anchor/tenant)<br />
*Upcoming<br />
*Barriers @ formation<br />
**Not many; they made their communication to leg. clear as to their intents and the group seemed to be good @ policticing<br />
*MORENET was created during a time of fiscal health, so lots money was available, they had the right group at the right time<br />
*Future Barriers<br />
**Republican leg and governor who don’t see MORENET as essential and would like to cut funding<br />
**Indirectly, the term limits affect their ability to inform legislatures on the importance of MORENET<br />
**Attempt to fold MORENET into something it’s not e.g. connecting additional state agencies or foregoing MORENET in favor of complete state-wide network w/ all gov’t agencies on it <br />
<br />
Here are his suggestions for B&amp;MG Foundation<br />
*Would like to see help to rural libraries to get connected to MORENET<br />
*In other states, he would recommend encouraging collaboration between libaries and other stakeholders within a state to form an action plan @ the state level to help entities get connected<br />
<br />
===MOREnet Staff===<br />
Several people attended this session including:<br />
<br />
*Bandwidth<br />
**Drew a graph to illustrate bandwidth<br />
***Started out low and remained flat from 1986-1990<br />
***In 1990, with the advent of Gopher and the opening of NSFnet to more than the large research Universities, MOREnet noticed a large spike in bandwidth and was brought down for <br />
***Bandwidth increased steadily from 1990-1994<br />
***In 19994, there was another spike in bandwidth utilization (due to the advent of Mosaic)<br />
***Steeper increase from 1994-late nineties, when it spiked again and in continues to increase at a faster rate then previous<br />
***Hitting a wall now because of video, audio and social networking sites<br />
**Has bandwidth monitoring software to monitor bandwidth utilization<br />
***Uses this to forecast future demand. This forecasting is not so much an exact science as empirically based<br />
***Has to time bandwidth increases to (so is important to forecast):<br />
****E-Rate<br />
****University Procurement Procedures<br />
****Termination penalties (e.g. has to sign contract to use circuit for x years, with penalty for early termination)<br />
****Vendor build-out<br />
**Overbuilds capacity in order to facilitate future expansion of bandwidth needs<br />
*Funding<br />
**MOREnet charges a flat rate for all libraries to be a member<br />
**This rate is used to aggregate demand and take care of ‘accidents of geography’<br />
***Does not matter if they are near an urban environment or rural (low v. high cost, relatively)<br />
**Does not charge based upon bandwidth allocation (one exception mentioned in E-Rate)<br />
**Allows for equitable access to all libraries<br />
*Technology and Biddings<br />
**Picture of backbone can be found on the web<br />
**Hit brick wall when wanted T1s to all facilities in 1998<br />
**Became anchor-tenant whereby SBC had to build out the capacity, which allowed other entities to connect<br />
**Approaching that wall in current situation—Fiber is needed but not built out across the state<br />
**Getting to the point where they outstrip the providers<br />
**Used to be able to solicit one bid to get everyone connected, but now is getting to the point where bandwidth for each entity is customized, which requires a separate RFP to build<br />
**Finds this inefficient and is looking to get FTTP in order to be able to dial up the speed at no extra marginal cost<br />
**Backbone currently operated by Show-me (a consortia of Missouri Electric companies) and Light Corp (affiliated with Century Tel)—currently runs @ 1 Gb, but expects to have 2 Gb soon<br />
**Has implementation of QoS on backbone<br />
***Allows institutions to control which packets have priority<br />
***Video and MOBIUS (statewide ILS used by Universities and a few other libraries<br />
**Has a Network Operations Center (NOC) to determine in real time bandwidth allocation and ensure there is a big enough pipe out to the Internet (ensures that the traffic on the backbone-traffic available to get out on Internet<br />
**Connects institutions via Frame Relay and T1s all the way to the backbone via one of the nodes.<br />
**Uses Ethernet to traverse the backbone<br />
**3/4 of the budget goes to AT&amp;T and other Telcos to pay for the last mile to the institutions<br />
**Issued an RFP to build a new backbone on the day we visited<br />
***Permanently lease 2 strands of fiber for 20 years (owned by Missouri State University) and managed by MOREnet<br />
****Expects bidders to be Level 3 and Show-Me (not traditional telcos)<br />
***Will not be able to use E-Rate to pay for backbone because the backbone will be owned by MOREnet and not run by a ‘Qualifying ISP’ as required by E-Rate rules<br />
***New backbone will have 2 strands, each going at 10 Gbps, with the possibility of expanding capacity by upgrading electronics---not having to buy new capacity (a large cost savings)<br />
***Nodes will be in Kansas City, Columbia, St. Louis, Jefferson City and Springfield<br />
***Connection to Commodity Internet and I2 out of St Louis and Kansas City<br />
***Seeking to peer network with neighboring states to ensure passage of packets for no charge<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**Collaboration<br />
***Thinks building infrastructure alone is inefficient<br />
***One point of contact for helpdesk for schools, libraries and university<br />
***Librarians to assist librarians (they have a librarian on staff to help communicate with librarians)<br />
***MOREnet helps foster collaborations between libraries K12, Higher Ed and Libraries<br />
**Independent business reportable to members<br />
**Internally<br />
***Run to maximize profit <br />
***Not good to keep secrets and ensure transparency<br />
***Auditable @ state and federal level<br />
**Working with great people that are great so they don’t have to work for money because they enjoy services supplied by MOREnet<br />
**Employees<br />
***MOREnet has 105-110 employees<br />
***A majority work in support, training and customer service work<br />
***Believes that it is not about the wires &amp; boxes<br />
**Good idea to partner with state CIO<br />
**Funding model<br />
***Aggregate demand to leverage buying power of combined demand<br />
***Leverage E-Rate<br />
***Allows for quality service<br />
**Conferences<br />
***Holds its own conferences and training sessions<br />
***Also attends Missouri Library Association to open up communication<br />
**Maximize usage of Funding sources (Gates, LSTA and appropriation)<br />
**Help to train the human capital (combining technical training with Human training)<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Senate bill requiring network mergers<br />
**E-Rate<br />
***Allows institutions to buy service elsewhere for cheaper than the MOREnet membership fee<br />
****Institutions don’t see value in tech support and databases<br />
****Or value in centralized services for less overhead<br />
****Only sees MOREnet as pipe, but it is more<br />
***Complexity<br />
**Facilitating fiber deployment to hinterlands<br />
***Maxed out T1 in 4 years; T3 in 1; <br />
***Needs a new model to pay for bandwidth (thinks fiber is the key because there is no marginal cost in turning up the speed on the connection; only in getting the packet on the Internet)<br />
*Misc<br />
**Staff Development<br />
***Believes that despite funding shortage, staff development is a key investment to make<br />
***Thinks that it is important to mentor the next generation of leaders to run state network<br />
***Fosters an environment of collaboration, technology and outreach to the MOREnet community using non-technical terms<br />
***Works with younger staff to ensure there is a shared vision for the next generation of MOREnet<br />
<br />
===State CIO OFfice===<br />
Dan Taylor, CIO of the state of Missouri and Pete Wieberg the Telecom. Director.<br />
<br />
*By order of the governor all of the state agencies IT functions are being centralized under the office of the state CIO<br />
*Both interviewees looked at MORENET as a partner<br />
**Interesting note: MORENET is the ISP for the state government offices in Jefferson City, as it provides the least expensive option<br />
*Interviewees work with state agencies to increase bandwidth to Government and health care<br />
*To provide this connectivity, they are creating the next generation Network<br />
**The network is designed to connect government agencies, public safety and for telemedicine<br />
**The backbone of the network will consist of fiber owned by the MO Dept. of Transportation<br />
**Fiber gifted to Dept. of Trans from Show-ME (a Missouri Electric company consortium) in exchange for the rights of way along the freeway<br />
***Fiber is owned by the Dept of Trans, but prokered by the State IT office<br />
***Fiber can only be used for governmental, non-commercial purposes<br />
**Designed to run in parallel to MOREnet <br />
***MOREnet, according to them is more than just a state network <br />
***They did do not want to test in court if using the fiber to connect library and schools is a governmental, non-commercial purpose<br />
**NGN is designed to be a private public partnership (e.g. state owns backbone but private sector provides last mile)<br />
*Barriers to entry for Broadband<br />
**There are over 40 telecom companies<br />
**No coordination at the state libraries<br />
***Thinks the state needs to do more<br />
***No broadband deployment plans or authority<br />
**Power company is laying fiber along the power lines<br />
***Creates an is sue of regulated (telecos) and un-regualated (power) entities providing broadband<br />
*How best to connect?<br />
**Consolidate Demand<br />
***Thinks it is best for institutions and companies to have one revenue stream to connect multiple entities instead of one revenue one connection<br />
**Invest in the community to deploy the network<br />
*Off the record: Thinks that owning the fiber for the backbone helps place the state in a better negotiating position w/ AT&amp;T<br />
*Funding opps for B&amp;MG<br />
**Important to frame in terms of economic development<br />
**Believes that libraries in communities is a trusted entity that is highly respected and valued<br />
**Best to promote a national agenda<br />
**Make solutions as cost effective as possible<br />
**Would like a review of telephone and broadband deployment<br />
<br />
===Rebecca Miller===<br />
<br />
Rebecca is the E-Rate coordinator who works at MOREnet<br />
<br />
*Does E-Rate Internet connectivity in aggregate for all MOREnet members, including both schools &amp; libraries<br />
*E-Rate is not used to cover MOREnet membership fee, which libraries are required to still pay. Rather, it is used to keep their membership fee low <br />
*Each libarary is required to file a letter of agency to MOREnet and other forms certifying they have filters<br />
*Technology Plan is filed with the State Library, who reviews and retains them<br />
*MOREnet receives the money and it is part of their budget<br />
*For Schools and libraries, they received $5-6 Million for 737 connecting institutions (6% of the annual operating expenses of MOREnet)<br />
*CIPA<br />
**All but 3 library systems in the state are CIPA compliant<br />
**MOREnet has a network filter or it can be applied at local level<br />
**Libraries that are not CIPA-compliant are charged an additional fee per T1 connection ($1300 in current year) to cover for lost revenue due to not <br />
*Libraries are encouraged to apply for POTS and cell phone E-Rate discount on their own.<br />
*Rebecca provides training on how to file E-Rate paperwork (both for the paperwork required for MOREnet and POTS)<br />
**Morning is training<br />
**Afternoon is filling out the form<br />
*Notes difficulty in getting paperwork in on time by the filing date, and casually reminds libraries that they will be charged per T1 if they do not file on time<br />
<br />
==Follow ups==<br />
<br />
===Don Walsch OARNET===<br />
<br />
The key factor was the State of Ohio's decision to establish a strategic plan for networking which established at T1 as the desired standard for connectivity, and then the state need to create an environment where this level of service would be affordable statewide for all State Agencies including libraries, K-12 schools and higher education. As a result of issuing an RFP, which include all state entities, the state received favorable pricing due to the volume of the contract and the term which was 10 years. This approach is currently being considered in the next generation broadband where a T1 is no longer an adequate standard and we are looking to set a new goal to provide a range of ethernet connectivity (10 megabits to 1 gigabit) as the new standard. <br />
With the integration of voice, data, video and internet services using IP there will be rapidly increasing broadband requirements. As with the previous approach the key is to establish the standard and set that as the state goal and then to develop an RFP for the private sector to compete for the best price and options to deliver this service. We are also looking at expanding the scope to include all state, local and federal governments in the state as well as research faciities, education and education related and healthcare. The theory is by further expanding the eligibility entities the pricing may be more favorable in the RFP.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Missouri_State_Visit_Data&diff=2450Missouri State Visit Data2007-03-19T04:02:29Z<p>Mbard: /* Mark Redding */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
<br />
==Lynne==<br />
<br />
==Mark==<br />
===Mark Redding===<br />
<br />
Mark is the Executive Deputy Secretary of State and used to work in the state budget office at the time of MOREnet's creation<br />
<br />
Exec Summary<br />
<br />
*There are many champions within MO that made this happen (not just one)<br />
*Collaboration between various state agencies (in MO case Higher Ed, Library, K12, Budget Office and Governor’s Office) is very important in his mind for success<br />
*One thing we haven’t talked about before is collaborating with the state budget office. Had Mark not intervened in 2002, K12 may have pulled out of MORENET, which would have pulled some funding.<br />
<br />
Mark worked for the state budget office from 1993-2003. While there, he saw a need to bring information technology to state government as a way of reducing costs (to which he encountered reisistance from the state data processing people. Basically, Mark is a budge analyst at heart and enjoys figuring out how to pay for things and the politics involved to ensure that the money makes it through to the legislators.<br />
<br />
Here is Mark’s take on the creation and continuation of MORENET<br />
*A group of individuals got together to discuss how to get Missouri connected<br />
**Bill Mitchell from the Higher Ed Community<br />
**Elden Wallace (also of higher ed community, but used to work at state governor’s office<br />
**Mike Hartsmann from the Governor’s Office<br />
**State Librarian (Anne ?) (<br />
***Additional note Mark is married to one of the employees of the state library<br />
**Mark (at the state budget office)<br />
*They wanted to figure out how to connect the higher ed, K12 and libraries using a common network platform<br />
*The group worked collaboratively to establish MORENET and ensure that MORENET continued to exist<br />
**Received some seed money from State Budget’s office<br />
**Approrpriation originally appeared in 3 separate budget requests<br />
***Office of administration (for libs) and then was transferred to state library<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
**During 2002 budget crunch, K12 was looking to cut funding to MORENET<br />
***But Mark (working as the de facto budget director for the state) removed appropriation from K12 budget and placed it into the higher ed approps (which would prevent Ed. Dept. from slashing funding <br />
**Presently, MORENET is funded by 2 appropriations<br />
***One to state library for last mile to libs and databases<br />
***One to higher ed to pay for backbone and last mile to k12 and higher ed<br />
**The group collaborated to make educational/maketing literature and to determine bandwidth requirements for entities (we’l<br />
*Thinks MORENET helped spur broadband deployment (eg. Anchor/tenant)<br />
*Upcoming<br />
*Barriers @ formation<br />
**Not many; they made their communication to leg. clear as to their intents and the group seemed to be good @ policticing<br />
*MORENET was created during a time of fiscal health, so lots money was available, they had the right group at the right time<br />
*Future Barriers<br />
**Republican leg and governor who don’t see MORENET as essential and would like to cut funding<br />
**Indirectly, the term limits affect their ability to inform legislatures on the importance of MORENET<br />
**Attempt to fold MORENET into something it’s not e.g. connecting additional state agencies or foregoing MORENET in favor of complete state-wide network w/ all gov’t agencies on it <br />
<br />
Here are his suggestions for B&amp;MG Foundation<br />
*Would like to see help to rural libraries to get connected to MORENET<br />
*In other states, he would recommend encouraging collaboration between libaries and other stakeholders within a state to form an action plan @ the state level to help entities get connected<br />
<br />
===MOREnet Staff===<br />
Several people attended this session including:<br />
<br />
*Bandwidth<br />
**Drew a graph to illustrate bandwidth<br />
***Started out low and remained flat from 1986-1990<br />
***In 1990, with the advent of Gopher and the opening of NSFnet to more than the large research Universities, MOREnet noticed a large spike in bandwidth and was brought down for <br />
***Bandwidth increased steadily from 1990-1994<br />
***In 19994, there was another spike in bandwidth utilization (due to the advent of Mosaic)<br />
***Steeper increase from 1994-late nineties, when it spiked again and in continues to increase at a faster rate then previous<br />
***Hitting a wall now because of video, audio and social networking sites<br />
**Has bandwidth monitoring software to monitor bandwidth utilization<br />
***Uses this to forecast future demand. This forecasting is not so much an exact science as empirically based<br />
***Has to time bandwidth increases to (so is important to forecast):<br />
****E-Rate<br />
****University Procurement Procedures<br />
****Termination penalties (e.g. has to sign contract to use circuit for x years, with penalty for early termination)<br />
****Vendor build-out<br />
**Overbuilds capacity in order to facilitate future expansion of bandwidth needs<br />
*Funding<br />
**MOREnet charges a flat rate for all libraries to be a member<br />
**This rate is used to aggregate demand and take care of ‘accidents of geography’<br />
***Does not matter if they are near an urban environment or rural (low v. high cost, relatively)<br />
**Does not charge based upon bandwidth allocation (one exception mentioned in E-Rate)<br />
**Allows for equitable access to all libraries<br />
*Technology and Biddings<br />
**Picture of backbone can be found on the web<br />
**Hit brick wall when wanted T1s to all facilities in 1998<br />
**Became anchor-tenant whereby SBC had to build out the capacity, which allowed other entities to connect<br />
**Approaching that wall in current situation—Fiber is needed but not built out across the state<br />
**Getting to the point where they outstrip the providers<br />
**Used to be able to solicit one bid to get everyone connected, but now is getting to the point where bandwidth for each entity is customized, which requires a separate RFP to build<br />
**Finds this inefficient and is looking to get FTTP in order to be able to dial up the speed at no extra marginal cost<br />
**Backbone currently operated by Show-me (a consortia of Missouri Electric companies) and Light Corp (affiliated with Century Tel)—currently runs @ 1 Gb, but expects to have 2 Gb soon<br />
**Has implementation of QoS on backbone<br />
***Allows institutions to control which packets have priority<br />
***Video and MOBIUS (statewide ILS used by Universities and a few other libraries<br />
**Has a Network Operations Center (NOC) to determine in real time bandwidth allocation and ensure there is a big enough pipe out to the Internet (ensures that the traffic on the backbone-traffic available to get out on Internet<br />
**Connects institutions via Frame Relay and T1s all the way to the backbone via one of the nodes.<br />
**Uses Ethernet to traverse the backbone<br />
**3/4 of the budget goes to AT&amp;T and other Telcos to pay for the last mile to the institutions<br />
**Issued an RFP to build a new backbone on the day we visited<br />
***Permanently lease 2 strands of fiber for 20 years (owned by Missouri State University) and managed by MOREnet<br />
****Expects bidders to be Level 3 and Show-Me (not traditional telcos)<br />
***Will not be able to use E-Rate to pay for backbone because the backbone will be owned by MOREnet and not run by a ‘Qualifying ISP’ as required by E-Rate rules<br />
***New backbone will have 2 strands, each going at 10 Gbps, with the possibility of expanding capacity by upgrading electronics---not having to buy new capacity (a large cost savings)<br />
***Nodes will be in Kansas City, Columbia, St. Louis, Jefferson City and Springfield<br />
***Connection to Commodity Internet and I2 out of St Louis and Kansas City<br />
***Seeking to peer network with neighboring states to ensure passage of packets for no charge<br />
*Best Practices <br />
**Collaboration<br />
***Thinks building infrastructure alone is inefficient<br />
***One point of contact for helpdesk for schools, libraries and university<br />
***Librarians to assist librarians (they have a librarian on staff to help communicate with librarians)<br />
***MOREnet helps foster collaborations between libraries K12, Higher Ed and Libraries<br />
**Independent business reportable to members<br />
**Internally<br />
***Run to maximize profit <br />
***Not good to keep secrets and ensure transparency<br />
***Auditable @ state and federal level<br />
**Working with great people that are great so they don’t have to work for money because they enjoy services supplied by MOREnet<br />
**Employees<br />
***MOREnet has 105-110 employees<br />
***A majority work in support, training and customer service work<br />
***Believes that it is not about the wires &amp; boxes<br />
**Good idea to partner with state CIO<br />
**Funding model<br />
***Aggregate demand to leverage buying power of combined demand<br />
***Leverage E-Rate<br />
***Allows for quality service<br />
**Conferences<br />
***Holds its own conferences and training sessions<br />
***Also attends Missouri Library Association to open up communication<br />
**Maximize usage of Funding sources (Gates, LSTA and appropriation)<br />
**Help to train the human capital (combining technical training with Human training)<br />
*Challenges<br />
**Senate bill requiring network mergers<br />
**E-Rate<br />
***Allows institutions to buy service elsewhere for cheaper than the MOREnet membership fee<br />
****Institutions don’t see value in tech support and databases<br />
****Or value in centralized services for less overhead<br />
****Only sees MOREnet as pipe, but it is more<br />
***Complexity<br />
**Facilitating fiber deployment to hinterlands<br />
***Maxed out T1 in 4 years; T3 in 1; <br />
***Needs a new model to pay for bandwidth (thinks fiber is the key because there is no marginal cost in turning up the speed on the connection; only in getting the packet on the Internet)<br />
*Misc<br />
**Staff Development<br />
***Believes that despite funding shortage, staff development is a key investment to make<br />
***Thinks that it is important to mentor the next generation of leaders to run state network<br />
***Fosters an environment of collaboration, technology and outreach to the MOREnet community using non-technical terms<br />
***Works with younger staff to ensure there is a shared vision for the next generation of MOREnet<br />
<br />
==Follow ups==<br />
<br />
===Don Walsch OARNET===<br />
<br />
The key factor was the State of Ohio's decision to establish a strategic plan for networking which established at T1 as the desired standard for connectivity, and then the state need to create an environment where this level of service would be affordable statewide for all State Agencies including libraries, K-12 schools and higher education. As a result of issuing an RFP, which include all state entities, the state received favorable pricing due to the volume of the contract and the term which was 10 years. This approach is currently being considered in the next generation broadband where a T1 is no longer an adequate standard and we are looking to set a new goal to provide a range of ethernet connectivity (10 megabits to 1 gigabit) as the new standard. <br />
With the integration of voice, data, video and internet services using IP there will be rapidly increasing broadband requirements. As with the previous approach the key is to establish the standard and set that as the state goal and then to develop an RFP for the private sector to compete for the best price and options to deliver this service. We are also looking at expanding the scope to include all state, local and federal governments in the state as well as research faciities, education and education related and healthcare. The theory is by further expanding the eligibility entities the pricing may be more favorable in the RFP.</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Missouri_State_Visit_Data&diff=2391Missouri State Visit Data2007-03-05T00:01:30Z<p>Mbard: /* Mark */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nancy==<br />
<br />
==Lynne==<br />
<br />
==Mark==<br />
Exec Summary<br />
<br />
*There are many champions within MO that made this happen (not just one)<br />
*Collaboration between various state agencies (in MO case Higher Ed, Library, K12, Budget Office and Governor’s Office) is very important in his mind for success<br />
*One thing we haven’t talked about before is collaborating with the state budget office. Had Mark not intervened in 2002, K12 may have pulled out of MORENET, which would have pulled some funding.<br />
<br />
Mark worked for the state budget office from 1993-2003. While there, he saw a need to bring information technology to state government as a way of reducing costs (to which he encountered reisistance from the state data processing people. Basically, Mark is a budge analyst at heart and enjoys figuring out how to pay for things and the politics involved to ensure that the money makes it through to the legislators.<br />
<br />
Here is Mark’s take on the creation and continuation of MORENET<br />
*A group of individuals got together to discuss how to get Missouri connected<br />
**Bill Mitchell from the Higher Ed Community<br />
**Elden Wallace (also of higher ed community, but used to work at state governor’s office<br />
**Mike Hartsmann from the Governor’s Office<br />
**State Librarian (Anne ?) (<br />
***Additional note Mark is married to one of the employees of the state library<br />
**Mark (at the state budget office)<br />
*They wanted to figure out how to connect the higher ed, K12 and libraries using a common network platform<br />
*The group worked collaboratively to establish MORENET and ensure that MORENET continued to exist<br />
**Received some seed money from State Budget’s office<br />
**Approrpriation originally appeared in 3 separate budget requests<br />
***Office of administration (for libs) and then was transferred to state library<br />
***Higher Ed<br />
***K12<br />
**During 2002 budget crunch, K12 was looking to cut funding to MORENET<br />
***But Mark (working as the de facto budget director for the state) removed appropriation from K12 budget and placed it into the higher ed approps (which would prevent Ed. Dept. from slashing funding <br />
**Presently, MORENET is funded by 2 appropriations<br />
***One to state library for last mile to libs and databases<br />
***One to higher ed to pay for backbone and last mile to k12 and higher ed<br />
**The group collaborated to make educational/maketing literature and to determine bandwidth requirements for entities (we’l<br />
*Thinks MORENET helped spur broadband deployment (eg. Anchor/tenant)<br />
*Upcoming<br />
*Barriers @ formation<br />
**Not many; they made their communication to leg. clear as to their intents and the group seemed to be good @ policticing<br />
*MORENET was created during a time of fiscal health, so lots money was available, they had the right group at the right time<br />
*Future Barriers<br />
**Republican leg and governor who don’t see MORENET as essential and would like to cut funding<br />
**Indirectly, the term limits affect their ability to inform legislatures on the importance of MORENET<br />
**Attempt to fold MORENET into something it’s not e.g. connecting additional state agencies or foregoing MORENET in favor of complete state-wide network w/ all gov’t agencies on it <br />
<br />
Here are his suggestions for B&amp;MG Foundation<br />
*Would like to see help to rural libraries to get connected to MORENET<br />
*In other states, he would recommend encouraging collaboration between libaries and other stakeholders within a state to form an action plan @ the state level to help entities get connected</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Conference_Call_3/2/2007&diff=2377Conference Call 3/2/20072007-03-02T14:20:21Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>*California<br />
**Focus groups went great<br />
**On the brink of opportunities<br />
**Some counterveiws<br />
**CA is their own bear<br />
**Industry seems to think everything is fine<br />
**Rights of way is becoming a priority<br />
*Missouri<br />
**Everything is going welll<br />
**Cooperation @ state level w/ MORENT<br />
*Ohio<br />
**Frustrating b/c state librarian created list of meeting attendees<br />
**Left it up to us to schedule meetings<br />
**PUC is unable to attend meetings<br />
*Kentucky<br />
**Connect Kentucky is taking a leadership role<br />
**Touching base w/ state librarian<br />
*Michigan<br />
**Pulling things together for us<br />
*Kansas<br />
**All we have is invitation for dinner<br />
*Idaho<br />
**No word except for request for flights for focus groups<br />
*Problems &amp; Issues<br />
**Other than OH things seem to be going well<br />
*Contacting State Library Associations<br />
**Erin Haggerty will be contacting library associations<br />
*Reporting<br />
**ID State Librarian would like a state profile<br />
**Rick is worried that too much weight would be placed on reports when we are not sure that the picture we are drawing is complete<br />
*COSLA Follow-up<br />
**Is ok to set up follow up before COSA meeting to discuss findings<br />
**OITP will pay for one nights lodging<br />
*Next week’s meeting<br />
**Friday @ 10 EST; 9CST; 8 MST; 7 PST;</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Ohio&diff=2373Ohio2007-02-27T19:09:25Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>&lt;!--googleoff: index--&gt;<br />
==Data==<br />
<br />
===Public Libraries and the Internet===<br />
Statewide<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!LT56kbps!!56-128kbps!!129-256kbps!!257-768kbps!!769-1.5kbps!!GT1.5mbps!!DK!!!!LT 769!!GT769<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||||3.20%||3.30%||4.20%||58.90%||27.90%||2.60%||||10.70%||86.80%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
By Metropolitan Status<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Rural!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Surburban!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Urban||<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||16.40%||78.20%||5.30%||||Ohio||10.70%||87.80%||1.10%||||Ohio||0%||100%||0%||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===E-Rate===<br />
<br />
73% of libraries in Ohio receive E-Rate discounts.<br />
<br />
Funding Commitments, by year<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Year||1998||1999||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||Total<br />
|-<br />
!Amount||$3,969,996.75||$3,197,854.94||$1,464,087.30||$1,322,855.45||$1,481,447.64||$1,334,281.75||$701,590.88||$2,180,653.92||$2,278,998.82 <br />
||$17,931,767.45 <br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Internet2 SPEGs===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
Ohio has an Internet2 SPEG, but libraries are not connected.<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Connected 2k6!!Possible!!% of possible!!K20 &lt; 1.5 Mbps!!K20 =&gt; 1.5Mbps<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||0||270||0.00%||0.00%||0.00%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===ORS Survey Data===<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;2&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!colspan=&quot;8&quot;|How Libraries Connect...!!colspan=&quot;7&quot;|Barriers !!<br />
|-<br />
!State!!% of Libraries w/ Broadband!!Teleco Company!!School District!!Local Gov't!!Regional Telecom Network!!Regional Library Network!!State Telecomm Network!!State Library Telecom Network!!Other!!Few!!Comm Capacity!!Too Many Companies!!High Cost!!State Policy!!Lack of Local Expertise!!Other!!# of Vulnerable Libraries<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||&gt;90%||||||||||X||||||||X||||||||||||||25<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Misc.===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Library Conn'y (Draft - circ'd by Rick W. (J. Bertot)!!Receives Fed'l High-Cost Funding!!State Adv. Services, BBd or Tech Fund||State USF High-Cost!!State USF Schools &amp; Lib!!State USF Low-Income(in add'n to fed'l)!!Provides state support for Fed'l Lifeline/Linkup||Statewide Network (SEGP)!!Statewide Video Franchise!!Notes<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||80% of libraries with connectivity speeds of 769kbps or higher||States receiving less than $1 per line in high cost support|Ohio||* * * *||$ ||||||||||X||X||||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===FCC Data===<br />
<br />
Providers of High Speed Lines by Technology<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!ADSL!!SDSL!!Traditional&lt;br/&gt;Wireline!!Cable&lt;br/&gt;Modem!!Fiber!!Satellite!!Fixed&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Mobile&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Power Line&lt;br/&gt;and Other!!Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||752,633||5,392||18,693||1,115,618||19,046||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||11,669||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||Data withheld to maintain confidentiality||2,392,030||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!1999&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2000&lt;br/&gt;June!!2001&lt;br/&gt;June!!2002&lt;br/&gt;June!!2003&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2005&lt;br/&gt;June!!2005&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2006&lt;br/&gt;June!!<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||108,027||154,597||354,258||575,756||817,020||1,152,300||1,340,976||1,601,981||1,932,269||2,392,030||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Universal Service Fund<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|State or Jurisdiction!!colspan=&quot;6&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Payments from USF to Service Providers!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot; colspan =&quot;2&quot;|Estimated&lt;br/&gt;Contributions!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Estimated Net&lt;br/&gt; Dollar Flow<br />
|-<br />
!High Cost&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Low-Income&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Schools &amp;&lt;br/&gt;Libraries!!Rural Health&lt;br/&gt;Care!!colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;br/&gt;Total<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!Amount!!% of Total!!Amount!!% of Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Ohio||37,754||35,022||57,444||45||130,265||2.00%||221,875||3.40%||-91,610||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Broadband Providers==<br />
<br />
<br />
==State Network Information==<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Network Org.!!Funding Source!!Constituents!!Control Body!!Technology!!<br />
|-<br />
|OHIO&lt;br/&gt;OarNet&lt;br/&gt;http://www.osc.edu/oarnet&lt;br/&gt;1224 Kinnear Road&lt;br/&gt;Columbus, OH 43121&lt;br/&gt;(614) 292-9248&lt;br/&gt;Fax: (614) 292-7168&lt;br/&gt;||The Third Frontier Network is one of the premiere Regional Optical Network. Funding for the new network comes from a loan, state capital allocations and fees from member Universities||OarNet provides high quality Internet1, Internet2 and Intra-Ohio services to nearly 100 of Ohio’s colleges and universities at competitive rates. OARNet is a consortium of these members||OARNet is a division of the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC), a technology initiative of the Ohio Board of Regents||Connectivity ranging from fractional T1’s up to Gig of bandwidth||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==State-Level Broadband Report==<br />
http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Utilities/OneStop.cfm?OneStopKeyword=TP&amp;tm=Cnsmr<br />
<br />
&lt;!--googleon: index--&gt;</div>Mbardhttp://wikis.ala.org/connectivitystudy/index.php?title=Missouri&diff=2372Missouri2007-02-27T19:07:37Z<p>Mbard: </p>
<hr />
<div>&lt;!--googleoff: index--&gt;<br />
==Data==<br />
<br />
===Public Libraries and the Internet===<br />
Statewide<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!LT56kbps!!56-128kbps!!129-256kbps!!257-768kbps!!769-1.5kbps!!GT1.5mbps!!DK!!!!LT 769!!GT769<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||0.50%||||9.20%||16.40%||47.20%||24.60%||2.20%||||26.10%||71.80%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
By Metropolitan Status<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Rural!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Surburban!!!!colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Urban||<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||19.90%||77.30%||2.80%||||Missouri||60%||40.00%||0%||||Missouri||0%||100%||0%||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
===E-Rate===<br />
<br />
We are waiting for data on E-Rate discounts in this state.<br />
&lt;br /&gt;<br />
Funding Commitments, by year<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Year||1998||1999||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||Total<br />
|-<br />
!Amount||$640,006.37 ||$590,198.16||$577,725.27||$821,992.95||$616,615.25||$1,097,152.87||$701,590.88||$880,657.54||$821,992.95 || $6,747,932.24 <br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Internet2 SPEGs===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
Missouri has an Internet2 SPEG, and 129 libraries are connected.<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Connected 2k6!!Possible!!% of possible!!K20 &lt; 1.5 Mbps!!K20 =&gt; 1.5Mbps<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||129||388||33.25%||6.98%||26.27%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===ORS Survey Data===<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;2&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!colspan=&quot;8&quot;|How Libraries Connect...!!colspan=&quot;7&quot;|Barriers !!<br />
|-<br />
!State!!% of Libraries w/ Broadband!!Teleco Company!!School District!!Local Gov't!!Regional Telecom Network!!Regional Library Network!!State Telecomm Network!!State Library Telecom Network!!Other!!Few!!Comm Capacity!!Too Many Companies!!High Cost!!State Policy!!Lack of Local Expertise!!Other!!# of Vulnerable Libraries<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||&gt;90%||X||X||X||||||X||||||X|||||||||||||||70<br />
|}<br />
===Misc.===<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!Library Conn'y (Draft - circ'd by Rick W. (J. Bertot)!!Receives Fed'l High-Cost Funding!!State Adv. Services, BBd or Tech Fund||State USF High-Cost!!State USF Schools &amp; Lib!!State USF Low-Income(in add'n to fed'l)!!Provides state support for Fed'l Lifeline/Linkup||Statewide Network (SEGP)!!Statewide Video Franchise!!Notes<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||60-79% of libraries with connectivity speeds of 769kbps or higher||States receiving greater than $5 per line in high cost support||||||||||X||X||X||bills introduced in 06; died||<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===FCC Data===<br />
<br />
Providers of High Speed Lines by Technology<br />
<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!ADSL!!SDSL!!Traditional&lt;br/&gt;Wireline!!Cable&lt;br/&gt;Modem!!Fiber!!Satellite!!Fixed&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Mobile&lt;br/&gt;Wireless!!Power Line&lt;br/&gt;and Other!!Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||468,334||4,754||9,871||400,808||4,219||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||5,084||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality||1,016,732||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
High-Speed Lines by State (Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!State!!1999&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2000&lt;br/&gt;June!!2001&lt;br/&gt;June!!2002&lt;br/&gt;June!!2003&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;June!!2004&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2005&lt;br/&gt;June!!2005&lt;br/&gt;Dec!!2006&lt;br/&gt;June!!<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||21,825||44,924||120,863||220,477||362,040||537,343||584,743||704,273||811,811||1,016,732||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Universal Service Fund<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|State or Jurisdiction!!colspan=&quot;6&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|Payments from USF to Service Providers!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot; colspan =&quot;2&quot;|Estimated&lt;br/&gt;Contributions!!rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Estimated Net&lt;br/&gt; Dollar Flow<br />
|-<br />
!High Cost&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Low-Income&lt;br/&gt;Support!!Schools &amp;&lt;br/&gt;Libraries!!Rural Health&lt;br/&gt;Care!!colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;br/&gt;Total<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&amp;nbsp;!!Amount!!% of Total!!Amount!!% of Total!!<br />
|-<br />
|Missouri||85,146||5,396||36,291||118||126,951||1.95%||124,409||1.91%||2,541||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Broadband Providers==<br />
<br />
<br />
==State Network Information==<br />
{| border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Network Org.!!Funding Source!!Constituents!!Control Body!!Technology!!<br />
|-<br />
|MISSOURI&lt;br/&gt;MOREnet – The Missouri Research and Education Network&lt;br/&gt;http://www.more.net&lt;br/&gt;3212A LeMone Industrial Blvd&lt;br/&gt;Columbia, MO 65201&lt;br/&gt;(573) 884-7200&lt;br/&gt;1-800-509-6673&lt;br/&gt;Fax: (573) 884-6673&lt;br/&gt;||Original MOREnet consortium connected via NSF grants. On going funding provided by: state appropriations member dues, member service fees, port fees, direct network fees and one time start up cost||Provides Internet connectivity access to Internet2, technical support, videoconferencing services and training to Missouri K-12 schools colleges and universities and public libraries, health care and state gov’t and other affiliated organization||University of Missouri System a MOU with the University created the MOREnet council that provides planning and budgetary oversight. Additional information council can be found at&lt;br/&gt;www.more.net/about/council&lt;br/&gt;||975 member connections. 1Gbps backbone, 4G Internet access and OC12 connection to GPN for I2 access. H.323 video conferencing support.||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==State-Level Broadband Report==<br />
http://www.psc.mo.gov/consumer-telecoinfo.asp<br />
<br />
==Karen's Report==<br />
===State Library===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Structure&lt;/strong&gt;: The Missouri State Library is a state agency in the Office of the Secretary of State, currently Robin Carnahan. The Secretary of State appoints a state librarian who administers the affairs of the Missouri State Library. The librarian serves at the pleasure of the Secretary. <br />
<br />
The Secretary of State creates the Council on Library Development to advise her office and the State Library on matters that relate to the state's libraries and library service to Missouri citizens, to recommend policies and programs relating to libraries in the state, and to communicate the value of libraries.<br />
<br />
The Secretary appoints Council members who serve three-year terms on a rotating basis. Members include representatives from the House of Representatives, the State Senate, public, academic, school, and special libraries, trustees, and library users.<br />
The Council meets quarterly. Current members are: <br />
<br />
{|<br />
|-<br />
!!!<br />
|-<br />
|Melissa Carr, Chair&lt;br/&gt;(Director, Daniel Boone Regional Library&lt;br/&gt;(573) 817-7015. mcarr@coin.org)&lt;br/&gt;Shirley K. Baker, Academic Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Sen. Joan Bray, Legislature&lt;br/&gt;Sharla Buthod, School Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Tracy Byerly, Library Services&lt;br/&gt;Valerie Darst, Academic Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Rep. Kathlyn Fares, Legislature&lt;br/&gt;Mary Fridley, School Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Martha Hogerty, Citizen&lt;br/&gt;Rep. Paul LeVota, Legislature&lt;br/&gt;||Martha Maxwell, Citizen&lt;br/&gt;Sen. Robert Mayer, Legislature&lt;br/&gt;Kia Moore, Citizen&lt;br/&gt;Patricia Morrow, Citizen/Users of Wolfner Library&lt;br/&gt;Peggy Mullaly-Quijas, Special Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Tom Shaw, Library Trustees&lt;br/&gt;Linda Walker, Citizen&lt;br/&gt;Sue Wilke, Library Trustees&lt;br/&gt;Vacant: Public Libraries&lt;br/&gt;Vacant: State Employees&lt;br/&gt;<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;State Library Contacts:&lt;/strong&gt; <br />
<br />
Margaret M. Conroy, Missouri State Librarian&lt;br/&gt;<br />
margaret.conroy@sos.mo.gov&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(573) 751-2751 -or- (800) 325-0131 ext. 2&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Barbara Reading, Division Director&lt;br/&gt; <br />
barbara.reading@sos.mo.gov&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(573) 751-2679 -or- (800) 325-0131 ext. 4&lt;br&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie Musselman, Library Consultant, Technology&lt;br/&gt;<br />
debbie.musselman@sos.mo.gov&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(573) 522-6734 - or - (800) 325-0131, ext. 14&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Carl Wingo, Library Consultant, Technology and Digitization Services&lt;br/&gt;<br />
carl.wingo@sos.mo.gov&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(573) 751-1822 -or- (800) 325-0131 ext. 9&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===Missouri's Public Libraries===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Structure&lt;/strong&gt;. Missouri reports 166 tax-supported, public library jurisdictions and 359 library buildings. 55 public libraries are not tax supported. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Over 90 percent of Missouri residents live in tax-supported public library districts (separate political subdivisions), with fewer than 10 percent of residents living in areas without library service. Although the percentage of people who live outside of tax-supported library districts is relatively small, they equal a population of nearly one-half million located in 32 of Missouri’s 114 counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Only four counties have no tax-supported public library service—three in the extreme southern portion of the state, and the fourth located on the state’s east-central border. An additional 28 counties have at least one tax-supported public library, but the library’s taxing district does not encompass the entire county. These counties are located throughout the state, but most are in the northern and southeastern counties.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;E-rate&lt;/strong&gt;. Approximately 340 public libraries received e-rate funding during FY2006. Most of these were through the MOREnet application.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Internet Filtering&lt;/strong&gt;. In 2002, the Missouri Assembly passed laws that imposed obligations on public libraries with public access computers to restrict minors from gaining access to material that is pornographic. To comply, libraries may use either filters or adopt polices which establish how the library will restrict such access or both. According to data from the State Library, 12 libraries do not filter, two do not have Internet access, and 135 libraries filter.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Internet Connections&lt;/strong&gt;. All but two of Missouri’s tax-supported public libraries have Internet connections. 118 libraries belong to a statewide network, MOREnet, and have at least a T-I connection. These libraries serve 5,058,463 Missouri residents.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Non-MOREnet libraries have a variety of connections. Four libraries have DSL lines; seven have 56K connections; one has a free T1 connection; two have 384k connections; and two libraries do not report their connection speed.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
When asked some libraries do not belong to MOREnet, Debbie Musselman, State Library Technology Consultant, said that some non-member libraries already have Internet access through another source, either funded by the city or free. Musselman also said that the size of the staff, the number of hours of service, and MOREnet membership responsibilities, such as submitting technology plans, might discourage membership.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
===MOREnet===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; MOREnet was established in 1991 at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and operates as a separate unit within the University of Missouri System. MOREnet encouraged the state’s telecommunications providers to construct an advanced, high-speed, high-bandwidth network throughout Missouri.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Curators of the University of Missouri, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Missouri Department of Higher Education, and the Missouri Secretary of State formed the MOREnet Council (Council) in 2003. The Council consists of representatives from the Secretary of State, Department of Higher Education, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the University of Missouri, the Office of Administration, local schools, libraries, and higher education institutions.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
{|border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!MOREnet Council Members!!Alternates<br />
|-<br />
|Cheryl Bielema&lt;br/&gt;University of Missouri - St. Louis||Russell Helm&lt;br/&gt;University of Central Missouri<br />
|-<br />
|Rita Gulstad&lt;br/&gt;Central Methodist University||<br />
|-<br />
|Robert Stein&lt;br/&gt;Department of Higher Education||Jeremy Kintzel&lt;br/&gt;Department of Higher Education<br />
|-<br />
|Annie Busch (417.874.8120 x5 annie@mail.sgcl.org)&lt;br/&gt;Springfield-Greene County Library||<br />
|-<br />
|Karen Hicklin (660-747-1699 x103 hicklink@trl.lib.mo.us)&lt;br/&gt;Trails Regional Library||Glenda Hunt&lt;br/&gt;Adair County Public Library<br />
|-<br />
|Margaret Conroy&lt;br/&gt;Missouri State Library||Barbara Reading&lt;br/&gt;Missouri State Library<br />
|-<br />
|Jeanie Gordon&lt;br/&gt;New Franklin R-I School District||<br />
|-<br />
|Debbie Hughes&lt;br/&gt;Jefferson City Public Schools||Deborah Sutton&lt;br/&gt;Department of Elementary and Secondary Education<br />
|-<br />
|Bert Schulte&lt;br/&gt;Department of Elementary and Secondary Education||<br />
|-<br />
|Dan Ross&lt;br/&gt;State of Missouri||Tom Stokes&lt;br/&gt;State of Missouri<br />
|-<br />
|Gary Allen&lt;br/&gt;University of Missouri System||Jim Tom&lt;br/&gt;University of Missouri - St. Louis<br />
|-<br />
|Bill Mitchell&lt;br/&gt;MOREnet||David Byland&lt;br/&gt;MOREnet<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===MOREnet Contacts:===<br />
<br />
William “Bill” Mitchell&lt;br/&gt;bill@more.net&lt;br/&gt;Executive Director, MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;Associate Vice President for Telecommunications, University of Missouri System&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
Bill Giddings&lt;br/&gt;bgiddings@more.net&lt;br/&gt;Director, Education and Library Programs, MOREnet&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Funding&lt;/strong&gt;. In addition to House Bill 3 funding (Missouri’s general appropriations bill) for MOREnet, separate funding from the Secretary of State (House Bill 12) supports public library connections and shared electronic databases. Through collaboration between the MOREnet Council members and the State Library, shared electronic resources funded by House Bill 12 are available to all members of MOREnet. <br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;MOREnet Budget at a Glance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br />
(from http://www.more.net/about/legislative/pub_good-070205-04.pdf)<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Services&lt;/strong&gt;. MOREnet provides Internet connectivity, access to Internet2, technical support, videoconferencing services and training to K-12 schools, colleges and universities, public libraries, health care, state government and other affiliated organizations. In addition to Internet connectivity, MOREnet provides training and technical support, access to online reference resources, technical and topical discussion lists, security education and assistance, and videoconferencing.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
<br />
MOREnet provides fee-based services at a cost not included in a membership fee and include conferences and special events, Centra e-Conferencing, live video streaming, remote conference management, e-mail virus and spam filtering, Internet content filtering, and remote vulnerability assessment.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Internet2&lt;/strong&gt;. In 2001, MOREnet became one of the first five state education networks admitted to the Internet2 Sponsored Educational Group Participants Program. This program seeks to introduce the broader educational community to Internet2, an advanced national education and research network, created to avoid the crowded pathways of the current Internet. Previously available only to member universities, Internet2’s high-performance network is available to MOREnet members.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;MOREnet's Backbone&lt;/strong&gt;. MOREnet has five hub locations: Columbia, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Springfield and St. Louis. The hubs are connected together as a ring with a spoke across the middle. The network backbone is ATM, with one OC12 on each leg. Circuits to Internet providers are Packet-Over-Sonet. Each member is connected to the nearest hub via pure ATM or ATM to Frame Relay interworking.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Core equipment&lt;/strong&gt;. MOREnet uses Stratacom BPX ATM switches to run the ATM backbone. Each hub has a Cisco 10000-series router to aggregate customer circuits and a Cisco 12000-series router to provide backbone routing. Each hub also has a Sun Solaris server for DNS services.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Local MOREnet equipment&lt;/strong&gt;. Customer routers range from Cisco 1005 LAN extenders to Cisco 7507 routers depending on requirements.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;External Connectivity Providers&lt;/strong&gt;. MOREnet currently has two Internet providers: Qwest and Sprint, each that provide two OC12s (622Mbps), one in St. Louis and one in Kansas City. Two of the providers offer tiered pricing and MOREnet only uses a part of their circuits at present. MOREnet also has an OC3 to the Great Plains Network through which is available through their Internet2 access.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;MOREnet’s Library Program – REAL&lt;/strong&gt;. The Remote Electronic Access for Libraries (REAL) Program provides Missourians the opportunity to use the Internet at their local libraries. 118 Public Libraries are members of MORENET. REAL is sponsored by the State Library that also funds the online resources available to all MOREnet customers. All libraries using MORENET have a T-I or higher connection to the Internet.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility Requirements&lt;/strong&gt;. Any tax-supported public library is eligible to participate in the General Assembly-funded portions of the program. Tax supported libraries also must meet the requirements for state aid. In addition, participants must meet the following qualifications.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
• Provide at a minimum two computer workstations. The computer workstations must be at least a Pentium 3 with 128 MB RAM, and have at least 2 GB of available hard disk space. Machines must have Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition or greater.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• The workstations must be connected.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Commit to providing public access within six months of receiving the connection.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Designate up to four library staff members as MOREnet contacts. Contacts are designated to request services from MOREnet and are the channel for communications regarding program-related information.&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• Adopt a Technology Plan&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Application Process&lt;/strong&gt;: Libraries must complete an application form.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Participation Fees. FY07 (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007)&lt;/strong&gt;<br />
<br />
{|border=&quot;1&quot;<br />
|-<br />
!Library Tax Revenue!!Local Cost Share<br />
|-<br />
|Less than $24,999||$300<br />
|-<br />
|$24,999 - $74,998||$600<br />
|-<br />
|$74,999 - $124,998||$1,000<br />
|-<br />
|$124,999 - $249,998||$2,000<br />
|-<br />
|$249,999 - $399,998||$3,500<br />
|-<br />
|$399,999 - $599,998||$4,500<br />
|-<br />
|$599,999 - $799,998||$6,000<br />
|-<br />
|$799,999 - $999,998||$8,000<br />
|-<br />
|$999,999 - $2,999,998||$9,000<br />
|-<br />
|$2,999,999 or greater||$12,000<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===MOREnet in the 2007 General Assembly===<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Senate SB 121&lt;/strong&gt; would require every state public governmental body, including MOREnet, to begin a migration strategy to the fiber optic network currently owned by Missouri’s Department of Transportation for all telecommunications, video and data services by January 1, 2010. SB 121 is in the Senate Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee, which has not yet scheduled a hearing on the bill.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
This bill is similar to SB 1115, introduced in 2006. This bill was heard in a Senate committee in April 2006, but no other action is recorded. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
MOREnet submitted fiscal impact information for both bills. In the note for SB1115, MOREnet estimates an impact of four million dollars in 2009. This year, MORENet also submitted a fiscal note, available at http://www.more.net/about/legislative/.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;House/Senate Joint Report on MOREnet Performance Measures.&lt;/strong&gt; The House Appropriations staff and the Senate Appropriations staff performed a joint review of MOREnet's performance measures and released their findings on December 1, 2006. This review concluded that &quot;MOREnet has a well developed, targeted, and consistent method of evaluating and measuring its performance. Its inclusive decision-making and policy-setting model appears to be effectively incorporating the wide variety of entities using the service. In addition, its customer service feedback survey provides timely and specific feedback on its performance.&quot; The report is available at http://www.more.net/about/legislative/morenet_performance_measures.pdf.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Funding Requests for 2008&lt;/strong&gt;. MOREnet requested one-time additional funding for equipment upgrades to the network backbone and recurring funding to increase bandwidth to public K-12 schools and public higher education institutions. The Governor recommended flat funding for MOREnet, but included in his recommendations:&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $2.9 million one-time increase to fund 100 new eMINTS classrooms, (eMINTS is a professional development program for Missouri’s teachers)&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $2.6 million increase in ongoing funding for the Missouri Virtual School,&lt;br/&gt;<br />
• $840,000 to continue the Missouri Telehealth Network,&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• $150,000 increase to the REAL program to fund additional online resources, and&lt;br/&gt; <br />
• $1.5 million one-time funds to purchase equipment upgrades for the Office of Administration's Next Generation Network.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
At the Senate Appropriations Committee on January 29, 2007, Monica Beglau, Director of the eMINTS National Center; Jeanie Gordon, Superintendent of New Franklin R-I school district; and Bill Rogers, Director of Missouri River Regional Library, (573 634-2464 or 573 634-6064) testified on behalf of MOREnet and supported the Governor's budget recommendation, and expressed their concerns over bandwidth issues. The committee asked questions relating to the member fee increases. All witnesses responded that their fees had increased significantly and additional fees would require cutting something else at their organizations.&lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
At the House Appropriations, Education Committee meeting on February 5, 2007, Joyce Herzing, joyce@more.net, and Jim Snider, UM Governmental Relations, testified on behalf of MOREnet, supporting the Governor's recommendation. Testimony pointed out the current bandwidth growth trends and future concerns over the projected cost to support future bandwidth demands. This information is summarized from the reports on MOREnet's Legislative Resources Web Page, http://www.more.net/about/legislative. &lt;br/&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;strong&gt;Video Franchising in Missouri.&lt;/strong&gt; The General Assembly is considering a video franchising bill that died in the 2006 session, due to the efforts of the state’s dominant cable providers. However, cable firms in Missouri have now embraced Senator John Griesheimer's latest proposal, S.B. 284, because the bill would let them abrogate their existing contracts to seek s